/ 

LO 

fO 

! 

4 

3 

00 

•H      ^ 
•H  IS 

V 

U  -H       ! 

w  ^ 

IE 
CL 

O    D        j 

1  ^: 

<-t- 
o 

c 

<0 

•H 

rH 

(D    (D 
0) 

t»          o 

btt 

m 

£ 

O 

^       ^ 

< 

00 

(0 

m     g 

3 

rH 

rH 

G  C 

s     S 
^    g 

^ 

E 
en 

CO  -H 

O  O 

! 

1 
i 

S 

* 

s, 

W   D|        i 

o 

>> 

m 

G     . 

o  -t^ 

t 

rH 

o  n  w  4j 

X  00  TJ   C 

ii 

0) 

> 

(d  th 

■Hi 

^^ 

PQS 

<        ' 

#) 

CL 



- 

1 

1 

.i 


DISCUSSION 


OF    THE 


ORIGINAL  INSTITUTION,  PERPETUITY.  AND  CHANGE 


WEEKLY    SABBATH; 


IN    A    SERIES    OF    LETTERS,      FROM    JANUARY,     1835,    TO 
JULY,   1S36,  WRITTEN    FOR    THE    AMERICAN    BAP- 
TIST, CITY  OF   NEW  YORK;  WHICH,  EXCEPTING 
THE  LAST   SERIES,  WERE      PUBLISHED 
ACCORDINGLY. 


BY  WILLIAM  B.  MAXSON, 

PASTOR  OF  THE  SEVENTH  DAY  BAPTIST  CHURCH  IN  PISCATA WAT,  N.  J, 
AND 

WILLIAM  PARKINSON, 

PASTOR   OF  THE  FIRST  BAPTIST  CHURCH  IN  THE   CITY  OF  NEW  YORK. 


SCHENECTADY: 

PRINTED  BY  JOHN  MAXSON,  STATE  STREET. 
1836. 


E  RRATA. 

Page  6,  2d  line,  for  reach,  read  search. 
"     15,  22d  line  for  17,  12,  read  17,  2. 

Three  lines  below,  for  23,  read  28. 
"    16,  6th  line,  for  was,  read  were. 
"     30,  23cl  line,  for  ungenerate,  read  unregeuerate. 
"     32,  I7th  line,  for  Matt,  xiv,  read  x. 
"     33,  2  line  from  top,  and  4th  from  bottom,  for  John  xxi, 

read  xx. 
"     53,  insert  it  before  being,  in  the  1st  line. 
"     54,  5th  line,  for  these,  read  those. 
"    65,  in  note,  for  contract,  read  counteract. 


INTRODUCTION. 


Among  the  many  subjects  which  engage  the  atten- 
tion of  the  Christian  community  of  the  present  age, 
there  is  none  that  lays  a  stronger  claim  to  be  duly 
tuid  candidly  investigated,  than  that  of  the  weekly 
Sabbath.  Whether  we  consider  the  Sabbath  in  re- 
gard to  its  early  and  divine  institution — the  design 
of  God  in  providing  for  men  a  season  for  rest  and 
moral  improvement — the  influence  that  a  regard,  or 
disregard  to  its  duties  will  inevitably  exert  upon  hu- 
man happiness,  national  prosperity,  and  civil  order, 
the  moral  cultivation  of  the  mind,  and  religious  at- 
tainments ;  or,  in  regard  to  the  weighty  responsibili- 
ty resting  on  all  men,  implicitly  to  obey  their  God, 
and  the  certainty  of  this  divine  ordinance  receiv- 
ing the  favorable  notice  of  its  Divine  Institutor  and 
Lord  in  the  retributions  of  the  day  of  Judgment,  there 
will  be  found  sufficient  reason  for  giving  it  a  thorough 
and  faithful  investigation.  Yet  as  weighty  as  the  sub- 
ject is,  it  is  to  be  feared  that  there  are,  comparative- 
ly, but  few  who  are  inclined  seriously  to  inquire, 
what  has  God  said  ?    But  it  should  be  remembered 


VI  INTRODUCTION. 

that  neither  ignorance  of  a  revealed  duty,  nor  disin- 
cUnation  to  examine  and  reach  after  it,  can  be,  in 
the  sight  of  God,  a  justifiable  apology  for  its  neg- 
lect. The  aversion  generally  manifested  by  God's 
professed  friends,  to  having  the  observance  of  the 
iirst  day  of  the  week  fairly  investigated,  and  tested 
by  the  holy  Scriptures,  may  deservedly  be  consider- 
ed among  the  darkest  signs  of  the  times.  If  Chri»- 
tains  be  not  correctly  informed  relative  to  what  God 
requires  in  regard  to  the  Sabbath,  they  will  not  con- 
duct themselves  consistently  in  relation  to  it ;  and  we 
shall  look  in  vain  for  a  period  to  the  Sabbath  dese- 
cration, which  is  justly  the  subject  of  complaint  and 
alarm,  and  which  threatens  the  destruction,  not  only 
of  our  excellent  civil  and  moral  institutions,  but  the 
purity  of  the  Church  itself.  It  matters  not  what 
means  Satan  resorts  to,  to  bring  himself  into  the 
field,  nor  what  weapons  he  uses  against  the  religion 
of  Jesus  :  if  he  carries  his  point,  he  gains  the  day, 
and  the  Church  is  led  captive.  He  serves  his  pur- 
pose as  well  by  subverting  a  duty,  as  by  corrupting  a 
doctrine.  It  is  time  Christains  were  awake  to  the 
inquiry  as  to  what  God  requires  in  regard  to  the  day 
He  has  sanctified  and  blessed.  To  aid  in  this  inqui- 
ry, the  subject,  in  the  following  letters  is  discussed 
and  investigated  in  its  most  important  points.  Much 
impressive  testimony,  both  scriptural  and  historical, 
IS  here  collected.  The  reader  is  earnestly  desired  to 
peruse  with  prayerful  attention,  the  whole  discussion, 
and  to  examine  with  care  the  numerous  texts  of 
Scripture,  and  other  authorities  with  their  connections, 
here  referred  to,  that  he  may  see  the  bearing  they 
were  designed  to  have  upon  the  subject  in  hand.  It 
is  time  men  and  women  began  to  think,  believe,  and 
act  for  themselves  in  matters  of  religion,  in  refer- 
ence to  the  day  when  they  must  giwe  account  for  thena- 


INTRODUCTION.  VU 

selves  to  God,  and   receive  in  their  own  persons  ac- 
cording as  their  own  works  shall  be. 

It  may  not  be  improper  to  state,  that  I  have  not 
been  led  in  to  this  discussion  by  the  love  of  contro- 
versy ;  but  by  a  regard  for  what  I  do,  from  a  studi- 
ous application  of  myself  to  the  subject,  believe  to 
be  the  truth  of  God's  blessed  Word.  This  discussion 
originated  in  some  remarks  inserted  by  the  Rev.  W. 
Parkinson  in  the  Appendix  of  a  small  Pamphlet,  enti- 
tled 'A  Summary  of  Faith,^  &c.  which  were  considered 
s&  an  unjust  reflection  upon  those  who  observe  the 
seventh,  instead  of  the  first  day  of  the  week.  With 
the  hope  of  obviating  the  unpleasant  influence  of 
those  remarks,  and  to  sustain  what  I  hold  as  the 
truth  relative  to  the  Sabbath,  my  first  letter  was  ad- 
dressed to  him,  through  the  columns  of  the  American 
Baptist,  Jan.  1835.  His  first  letter  in  reply  soon 
appeared,  in  which  he  endeavored  to  defend  the  ar- 
guments by  which  he  had  arrived  at  the  exceptionable 
conclusions  and  remarks  above  noticed.  It  was  not 
then  my  expectation  that  the  discussion  would  ex- 
tend to  the  length  it  has,  or  even  that  it  would  go  be- 
yond my  second  letter  which  was  published  in  Feb- 
ruary. Mr.  Parkinson's  second  letter,  however, 
soon  appeared  ;  and  my  third  to  him  which  was  de- 
signed as  an  answer  to  it,  was  forwarded  to  the  Ed- 
itor in  April.  But  by  the  request  of  Mr.  P.  who 
wished  to  lay  his  views  of  the  whole  subject  before 
the  public  without  interruption  ;  it  was  not  published 
till  he  had  closed,  which  was  in  October  following. 
I  then  on  my  part,  likewise,  in  a  number  of  letters, 
gave  the  outlines  of  my  own  views,  and  replied  to 
what  I  considered  exceptionable  in  his.  It  was  ex- 
pected that  this  would  have  closed  the  discussion  ;  but  a 
rejoinder  in  a  second  series  of  letters  was  commen- 
ced after  a  short  pause.  In  these  letters,  many  of  my 
a2 


Vlll  INTRODUCTION. 

remarks  were  misconstrued,  and  calculated  in  ma- 
ny instances  to  impress  the  reader's  mind  erroneous- 
ly respecting  what  I  had  written.  It  therefore  be- 
came my  indispensable  duty  to  correct  these  errors, 
and  to  substantiate  my  own  statements.  This  is 
principally  the  work  of  my  second  series  of  letter^ 
to  him.  Proceeding  in  this  manner,  the  discussion 
has  taken  a  tolerably  wide  range,  embracing  the  ar- 
guments generally  used  for,  and  against  the  sanctifi- 
cation  both  of  the  seventh  and  the  jirst  day.  This 
has  probably,  been  the  best  method  of  conducting 
our  correspondence,  as  we  have  both  had  the  oppor- 
tunity of  exhibiting  our  views  with  less  of  the  ap- 
pearance of  a  dispute,  than  it  might  have  had  if  each 
letter  had  its  particular  reply. 

I  have  only  further  to  mention  my  reasons  for 
wishing  a  re-publication  of  this  discussion  in  the  pres- 
ent form.  One  object  to  be  gained  is,  that  the  whole 
subject  would  be  put  in  a  condition  to  be  convenient- 
ly read,  and  understood.  Scattered  as  it  was,  over 
a  weekly  periodical  of  more  than  a  year  and  a  half 
continuance  ;  but  few  have  had  opportunity  of  reading 
all  the  letters  embraced  in  it.  And  those  who  have 
read  them  as  they  have  been  published,  can,  with 
difficulty  recollect  the  chain  of  evidence  and  argu- 
ment, v/hich  has  been  used  in  the  support  of  the 
doctrines  advocated,  and  this  they  would  be  unable 
to  do,  unless  they  have  preserved  their  papers,  which 
kw  are  in  the  habit  of  doing.  Besides  this,  it  re- 
quires more  labor  to  follow  the  frequent  references 
of  one  letter  to  another,  than  many  readers  are  in- 
clined to  bestow,  unless  all  were  compiled  together  in 
a  book.  As  it  is  now  published,  the  whole  may  be 
read  in  a  few  hours,  and  the  whole  argument  on 
both  sides  of  the  main  question  discussed,  may  be 
seen  at  one  view.     Another    reason  for  publishing 


INTRODUCTIOX.  IX 

the  entire  discussion  is  this,  Elder  Parkinson  has  al- 
ready published  his  letters  addressed  to  me  with  two 
only  of  mine  which  in  fact  are  but  an  introduction  to 
the  discussion  ;  thus  giving  only  his  own  side  of  the 
question.  Now,  whatever  good  intention  he  may 
have  had  in  pursuing  this  course  ;  he  has  practised 
great  injustice  towards  me.  Had  he  published  all 
my  letters,  or  omitted  them  all,  or  even,  had  he  giv- 
en me  notice  of  his  design,  thus  affording  me  an  op- 
portunity of  correcting  the  errors  of  the  press  which 
occurred  in  their  first  publication,  I  should  have  less 
cause  of  complaint.  But  the  precipitation  with  which 
he  has  hurried  his  letters  to  the  press,  before  the  dis- 
cussion on  my  part  was  closed,  and  well  knowing 
that  I  should  reply  to  his  last  series  of  letters,  shows 
a  total  disregard  to  the  claims  of  Christian  courte- 
sy and  betrays  a  strong  aversion  to  having  them 
presented  to  the  public  in  connection  with  the  reply, 
which  he  was  aware  would  detect  their  sophistry  and 
expose  their  numerous  misrepresentations  of  my 
sentiments.  It  is  therefore,  a  duty  I  owe  to  myself 
and  to  the  truth  I  have  advocated,  to  have  the  whole 
arguments  fully,  and  fairly  before  the  public,  that 
every  part  of  it  may  be  seen  as  it  is.  I  will  only 
add  that  I  have  one  more,  and  a  still  stronger  reason 
for  re-publishing  the  discussion,  and  this  is,  the 
Ho2)e  that  my  fellow  Christains  will  derive  a  benefit 
from  its  perusal,  by  obtaining  a  clear,  and  more  cor- 
rect understanding  of  the  sacred  obligation  they  are 
under  to  ^^keep  the  Sabbath  from  'polluting  it.^' 

W.  B.  MAXSON. 
New  Market,  N.  J.  1836. 


PRIITGBTOH 
.REG*  NOV  1880    ,     | 

SABBATH   DISCUSSION. 


LETTER    I. 


To  THE  Rev.  William  Parkinson. 

January,  1835. 
Sir, — The  only  apology  that  I  deem  necessary  for 
me  to  make  for  intruding  upon  your  attention,  is 
what  is  contained  in  No.  3,  in  the  appendix  of  a 
pamphlet,  published  by  you,  entitled  "A  Summary 
of  Faith,  8fc.^^  In  this  article  you  have  published 
your  reasons  for  not  observing  the  seventh,  but  the 
first  day  of  the  week.  To  this  I  should  not  have  felt 
it  my  duty  to  reply,  had  you  not  seen  fit  to  implicate 
the  denomination  of  Christians  with  which  I  have  the 
honor  to  be  associated.  The  sentiment  which  you 
have  expressed,  and  to  which  I  particularly  refer,  is 
contained  in  the  following  words,  p.  27.  "To  o2>- 
serve  the  seventh  day  Sabbath,  then,  under  the  Gos- 
pel dispensation,  must  be  decidedly  anti-evangelical  % 
it  is  practically  denying  that  Christ  is  come  in  the 
flesh,  and  virtually  admitting  that  the  Mosaic  dispen- 
pensation  remains  in  force."  To  deny  practically 
that  Christ  has  come  in  the  flesh,  is,  I  conceive,  no 
less  than  practical  infidelity,  and  according  to  1  John 
iv.  3,  is  anti-Christian  :  and  virtually  admitting  that 
the  Mosaic  dispensation  remains  in  force,  is  virtual- 
ly denying  the   existence  of  the  Gospel  dispensation. 


SABBATH    DISCUSSION.  11 

This  then,  is  the  charge  you  have  brought  against 
all  that  observe  the  Sabbath  of  the  Bible  ;  who  agree- 
ably to  your  subsequent  remarks,  have  fallen  from 
grace,  and  Christ  can  profit  them  nothing. 

Now,  Sir,  whatever  may  have  been  your  design  in 
the  remarks  referred  to,  I  think  no  person  acquain- 
ted with  the  common  interpretation  of  language,  can 
understand  them  in  a  sense  very  different  from  what 
I  have.  I  wish  with  Christian  meekness  to  re- 
pel this  charge  :  and  I  hope  it  will  be  received  by 
you  as  emanating  from  a  desire  to  restore  and  per- 
petuate Christian  kindness  and  charity  among  the 
members  of  our  respective  denominations,  who  in 
many  parts  of  our  country  are  intermingled,  and  have 
hitherto  lived  on  terms  of  Christian  friendship. — 
With  regard  to  your  reasons  for  not  observing  the 
Seventh  Day,  I  believe  you  have  erred,  both  in  your 
premises  and  conclusions. 

As  to  your  premises,  I  cordially  concur  in  what 
you  advance  respecting  the  institution  and  design  of 
the  seventh  day  Sabbath,  viz  :  That  God  instituted 
it  at  the  close  of  his  creative  operations,  and 
sanctified  it  by  setting  it  apart  for  the  future  rest  and 
observance  of  man,  as  a  means  of  his  moral  and  re- 
ligious improvement ;  but  your  allusions  to  this  in- 
stitution, as  typical  of  the  Gospel  institution,  is,  I  be- 
lieve, without  scripture  support  :  the  passages  you 
have  quoted  from  Heb.  iv.  4,  9,  10,  allude  particu- 
larly to  the  rest  of  the  saints  in  glory. 

In  speaking  of  the  Sabbaths  of  the  Jews,  you  must 
be  understood  to  represent  them  as  of  a  different 
character  than  that  of  the  original  seventh  day  Sab- 
bath. You  remark  that  *'  they  had  three,  viz.  the 
seventh  day,  the  seventh  year,  the  fiftieth  year  Sab- 
bath." But  they  had  certainly  more  than  these. — 
Every  day  on  which  they  were  forbidden  to  labor, 


12  SABBATH    DISCUSSION. 

was  a  Sabbath.  The  Passover,  the  first  and  last 
days  of  the  feast  of  unleavened  bread  ;  the  fiftieth 
day,  or  Pentecost ;  and  the  first  and  last  days  of  the 
feast  of  Tabernacles  were  Sabbaths.  See  Lev.  xxiii. 
dbap.  And  the  penalty  for  the  violation  of  these  an- 
nual Sabbaths,  was  no  less  than  that  due  to  the  week- 
ly day  of  rest.  All  these,  with  the  whole  Mosaic 
economy,  we  believe  were  typical  of  what  relates  to 
the  Gospel  dispensation  ;  were  fulfilled  in  Christ,  and 
by  him  taken  out  of  the  way,  nailing  them  to  his 
cross  ;  and  just  so  much  of  the  observance  of  the 
Seventh  Day,  as  was  peculiar  to  the  Jewish  nation 
we  also  believe  to  be  abohshed.  It  is  the  Sabbath 
which  was  at  first  instituted  in  its  regular  returns, 
and  which  you  admit  was  designed  for  the  future  ob- 
servance of  man,  and  engraved  with  the  finger  of 
God  with  the  other  precepts  of  the  decalogue,  that 
we  profess  to  observe.  And  if,  as  you  seem  to  infer, 
the  Seventh  Day  of  the  Jews  was  a  distinct  one  from 
this,  we  have  nothing  to  do  with  it.  Here  you  have 
blended  an  institution,  which  in  its  origin  had  no 
particular  allusion  to  the  Jewish  dispensation,  or  na- 
tion, with  their  shadowy  and  abolished  ritual,  which, 
in  my  opinion,  is  fundamentally  wrong. 

God  did  indeed  enjoin  the  keeping  of  the  Sabbath, 
with  the  other  precepts  of  the  decalogue,  upon  the 
nation  of  Israel.  An  institution,  as  important  to  the 
happiness  of  man,  as  was  the  Sabbath,  could  not 
have  been  omitted  by  the  Sovereign  of  the  universe, 
m  legislating  for  any  nation,  any  more  than  the  oth- 
er precepts  engraved  upon  the  tables  of  stone.  These 
were  all  given  to  the  Jews  under  similar  penalties  ; 
and  would  you  say  they  are  all  Jewish  laws  1  The 
laws  for  punishing  offenders  were  Jewish,  as  well 
as  some  peculiarities  in  their  observance.  These 
have    been  abolished  ;  but  this  affects  not  the  laws  ; 


SABBATH     DISCUSSION.  13 

they  must  remain  as  they  stood  unconnected  with  that 
dispensation,  until  formally  repealed  by  the  same  au- 
thority which  enacted  them.  To  this  sentiment  our 
Lord  has  borne  ample  testimony  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment. In  His  sermon  on  the  Mount,  He  declared,  un- 
der the  strongest  asseverations,  that  He  came  not  to 
destroy  the  Law,  but  to  fulfil  it  ;  and  that  not  one, 
not  even  the  least  of  those  precepts,  should  ever  be 
abrogated.  He  could  not  more  effectually  destroy 
the  Law,  than  to  Eibolish  it, — to  nail  it  to  his  cross, — 
to  take  it  out  of  the  way.  Nor  could  He  more  effect- 
tually  fulfil  it,  than  punctually  to  observe  it,  meet  the 
penalties  due  to  man  for  its  violations  and  fully  150 
preach  it  to  the  world  ;  all  which,  it  is  certain,  He 
did  do  ;  see  Matt.  5  :  17,  20.  The  same  is  une- 
quivocally asserted  in  Matt.  19  :  17.  He  enforced 
the  observance  of  those  precepts  without  distinction, 
and  seems  not  to  have  been  fearful  of  leading  men  to 
make  a  merit  of  what  they  did,  in  so  doing.  He  has 
also  very  plainly  declared  that  the  institution  of  the 
Sabbath  should  not  be  impaired  by  His  death,  or 
the  institution  of  the  Gospel.  He  commanded  #, 
religious  regard  to  be  had  to  it  for,  at  least,  forty 
years  after  these  events.  Matt.  24:  20.  Would 
the  disciples  have  been  commanded  "^to  prey  that  they 
should  not  be  put  to  flight  when  their  city  was  to  be 
destroyed,  if  no  such  an  institution  was  to  exist  by 
His  approbation  at  the  time  ?  Certainly  not.  You 
see.  Sir,  from  what  has  been  said,  that  the  Sabbath 
was  not  intended  in  its  institution,  nor  designed  by 
Jesus  Christ,  to  be  amalgamated  wuth  the  shadowy 
and  temporary  precepts  of  the  Jewish  ritual.  In  your 
conclusion,  I  also  think  that  you  have  erred.  For  if 
we  should  admit  that  your  views  are  correct,  as  to 
the  weekly  Sabbath  being  a  Jewish  typical  rite,  it 
would  not  follow,  that  observing  it  would  be  a  practi- 


14  SABBATH    DISCUSSION. 

cal  denial  that  Jesus  Christ  had  come  in  the  flesh, 
&;c.  unless  it  were  observed  in  order  to  be  justified 
and  saved  by  it.  The  tenacity  of  the  early  Chris- 
tians to  some  of  the  abolished  rites,  was  not  a  practi- 
cal denial  that  Christ  had  come  in  the  flesh.  Peter 
was  a  successful  preacher  a  long  time  before  he 
thought  it  lawful  to  eat  things  common  or  unclean, 
or  even  go  among  the  Gentiles,  and  yet  he  did  not 
deny  Christ  in  this.  Neither  did  Paul  in  circumci- 
sing Timothy.  And  you  must  be  too  well  acquain- 
ted with  the  sentiments  of  the  observers  of  the  sev- 
enth-day, not  to  know  that  their  observance  of  the 
Sabbath  weakens  not  their  dependence  upon  the  all- 
sufiicient  merits  of  Christ.  Your  remarks  upon  this 
subject,  therefore,  seem  to  be  unkind,  and  are  calcula- 
ted to  give  your  readers  a  wrong  view  of  the  subject, 
and  impress  them  unfavorably  and  erroneously  towards 
their  Christian  brethren  who  observe  the  Sabbath. 

It  is  not  my  object  in  this  letter  so  much  to  ani- 
madvert upon  your  reasons  for  observing  the  first 
day  of  the  week,  as  to  exculpate  myself  and  cove- 
nant brethren,  from  the  charge  of  observing  an  une- 
vangelical  and  Christ  denying  rite.  I  shall,  there- 
fore, only  further  remark  upon  what  you  have  said 
concerning  the  practice  of  Christ  and  his  Apostles  in 
this  thing. 

You  have  asserted  that  Christ  met  with  his  disci- 
ples the  two  successive  first  days  after  his  resurrec- 
tion ;  and  have  insinuated  that  he  met  them  in  Gali- 
lee the  two  following  first  days.  But  the  truth  is, 
that  Christ  met  with  them  but  once  when  they,  or  a 
majority  of  them,  were  together  on  the  first  day  of 
the  week  ;  and  the  circumstances  of  this  interview 
are  such  as  not  to  countenance  the  sanctity  of  the 
day.  It  was  but  an  evening  meeting — after  the  day 
had  been  devoted  by  two  of  their  number  in  travel- 


SABBATH    DISCUSSION.  15 

ing, — it  was  a  partial   meeting.     Thomas  was  not 
with  them  ;  and  they  knew  not  that  Christ  w^as  ris- 
en until  he  appeared  among  them.     Their  next  meet- 
ing was  after  eight  days  from  this  evening,  woiin  eight 
days,  nor  on  the  eighth  day,  consequently  it  could  not 
have  been   on  the  next  first  day.     Neither  is  there 
proof  that  Pentecost  fell  upon   the   first  day  of  the 
week,  since  it  was  the  fiftieth  day  from  the  first  day 
of  unleavened  bread,  and  might  occur  on  any  day  of 
the  week.     Burnside   says   it  must   have   fallen  this 
year  on   the  sixth   or   seventh  day.      Doctors  Brown 
and  Lightfoot  admit  that  it  fell  on   the  seventh   day. 
You  further  state  that   you  find  not  a  single  instance 
of  the  disciples  observing  the  seventh  day,  as   such  ; 
yet  you   find  abundant  evidence  that  they   statedly 
met  on  the  first  day.     Now,  Sir,  this  is  a  singular  as^ 
sertion.     You  find  in  Acts  13  :  14,    42,  44,  Paul  and 
others  observed  two  Sabbaths  in  succession  ;  chap- 
ter  18,   in   Corinth  Paul  attended  public  worship  ev- 
ery Sabbath   for    a  year   and   six   months  ;  and  in 
chapter  16  :   13th,  is  another  ;  and  in  chapter  17 .: 
12,  three    Sabbaths  in    succession  :  and  it  is  there 
said  that  this  was  his  manner.     These  Sabbaths  are 
mentioned  by  the   inspired  writers  as   such,   or  they 
would  not  have  mentioned  them  at  all.     In  Acts  23  ; 
17t  Paul  declares  that  he  had  done    nothing    against 
the  customs  of  the  Jewish  fathers  ;  consequently,  he 
had  not  taught  the  people  by  word  nor  example  to 
discard  the  seventh-day  Sabbath  ;  for   we  know  this 
would  have  been  directly    against   their  customs. — 
The  only  meeting  of  the  disciples  on  the  first  day  of 
the  week,  after  the  ascension  of  Christ,  recorded  in 
the  New  Testament,  and  in  which  you  find  abundant 
evidence  of  a    stated    meeting  on  this  day,   was  in 
Troas,  Acts  20  :  7.     And  how,  Sir,  are  we  to  know 
that  they  met   on  the  first  day,   as    such  ]     Some 


16  SABUATH     DISCUSSION. 

circumstances  relative  to  this  meeting  renders  it 
doubtful.  It  was  an  evening,  or  night  meeting, 
edther  at  the  close  of  the  Sabbath,  or  evening  after 
the  first  day.  If  it  were  the  former,  then  Paul  com- 
menced his  journey  on  the  morning  of  the  first  day  ; 
and  if  it  was  on  the  latter  evening,  then  it  was  on 
the  second  day  of  the  week  that  they  broke  bread — 
It  cannot,  therefore,  be  a  precedent  for  hallowing  the 
first  day  of  the  week,  nor  is  it  satisfactory  evidence 
of  a  stated  meeting  upon  that  day. 

I  am  respectfully  yours,  &c. 

W.  B.  MAXSON. 


LETTER  II. 


To  THE  Rev.  W.  B.  Maxsox. 

January,  1835. 

Sir, — The  notice  you  have  condescended  to  take 
oT  No.  3.,  in  the  Appendix  to  my  Kttle  Summary  of 
Faith,  ^c,  may,  in  the  judgment  of  some,  deserve  a 
respectful  reply.  Accept,  then  as  my  apology,  for  not 
having  replied  a  week  sooner,  that  I  was  in  the  coun- 
try when  your  address  to  me  appeared  in  the  Reposi- 
tory, and  that  I  did  not  see  or  even  hear  of  it  until  the 
Tuesday  evening  after  it  was  published.  Nor  should 
I  now  think  an  answer  called  for,  if  you  had  not  put 
such  a  construction  on  an  inference  which  I  drew 
from  certain  premises,  as  may  lead  some  who  hav^e 
not  read  my  Appendix,  to  think  that  I  had  viola- 
ted the  rules  of  Christian  charity,  and  aimed  to  pro- 
mote discord  ;  things  which  I  would  ever  studiously 
avoid. 

Having,  as  I  supposed,  proved  from  the  Scriptures, 
that  the  seventh  day  Sabbath,  like  every  other  Sab- 
bath, the  observance  of  wdiich  God  required  of  na- 
tional Israel,  was  typical  of  the  better  rest  to  be  en- 
joyed by  spiritual  Israel  under  the  Gospel, — I  infer- 
red, and  I  think  justly,  that  to  observe  the  seventh- 
day  Sabbath  under  the  Gospel  dispensation  is  decided- 
ly anti-evangelical  that  it  is  pratically  denying  Christ 
(the.  Antitype)  is  come  in  the  flesh,  and  virtually  ad- 


18  SABBATH    DISCUSSION. 

mitting  that  the  Mosaic  dispensation  is  still  in  force. 
By  this  inference,  however,  I  did  not  expect  to  be 
understood  as  saying  that  any  people,  who,  under 
the  Christian  name,  observe  the  seventh  day  Sabbath, 
believe  that  Christ  has  not  come  in  the  flesh,  or  that 
the  Mosaic  dispensation  is  now  in  force  ;  but  mere- 
ly that  the  present  observance  of  the  seventh  day 
Sabbath,  carries  in  it  an  implication  to  that  amount, 
and  consequently,  that  such  observance  is  inconsis- 
tent with  the  Christian  faith.  That  many  of  the 
primitive  Christians,  as  you  observe,  and  even  some 
of  the  apostles,  strangely  adhered  to  certain  Jewish 
rites,  cannot  be  denied.  But  was  not  this,  in  every 
instance,  anti-evangelical?  When,  indeed,  it  proceed- 
ed from  weakness  of  faith,  it  was  a  matter  of  Chri^ 
tian  forbearance.  Rom.  xiv.  But  after  more  evan- 
gelical knowledge  was  given,  it  became  censurable, 
whether  the  rites  observed  were  Mosaical  or  tradi^ 
tional.  Col.  ii.  16,  17,  20.  Besides,  it  was  some- 
times done,  even  by  apostles,  from  motives  of  carnal 
reasoning.  Paul,  for  instance,  circumcised  Timo- 
thy, not  as  an  act  of  obedience  but  of  expediency — be^ 
cause  of  the  Jews  ;  hoping  thereby  to  render  him  the 
more  acceptable  among  them.  Acts  xvi.  3,  And 
though  this  apostle  himself,  advised,  thereto  by  his 
brethren  at  Jerusalem,  submitted  to  certain  Jewish 
cermonies,  he  did  so  merely  under  the  expectation 
that  he  should  thereby  promote  his  safety  and  useful- 
ness among  his  nation.  In  this,  however,  he  was 
disappointed  :  God,  displeased  at  his  temporizing 
conduct,  chastised  him  severely,  by  suffering  the  Jews 
to  treat  him  very  ill.  See  Acts  xxi.  16,  32.  Thus 
corrected  and  instructed,  Paul,  when  he  found  his 
brother  Peter  acting  in  a  similar  manner,  withstood 
him  to  the  face,  because  he  was  to  be  blamed  ;  it  being 
after  he  had  the  visions  recorded  in  Acts  x.    And  hav- 


SABBATH     DISCUSSION.  19 

ing,  to  the  total  neglect  of  Judaism,  preached  the  Go?- 
pel  among  the  Gentiles,  Paul  justly  considered  that 
any  connivance  on  his  part  at  Jewish  usages,  would 
be  grossly  and  sinfully  inconsistent  ;  For,  saith  he,  if 
I  build  again  the  things  which  I  destroyed,  I  make 
myself  a  transgressor.     Gal.  ii.  11 — 18. 

Your  remark,  that  your  observance  of  the  seventh 
day  Sabbath  cannot  imply  a  belief  that  Christ  has 
not  come  in  the  flesh,  unless  you  should  observe  it 
expecting  thereby  to  be  justified  and  saved,  is  scarce- 
ly pertinent  ;  for  it  does  not  appear  that  the  Jews  ev- 
er expected  to  be  justified  and  saved  alone  for  observ- 
ing the  Sabbath. 

I  was  not  ignorant  of  the  fact,  that  certain  days  in- 
cluded in  the  annual  festivals  of  the  Jews  are  called 
Sabbaths,  and  that  on  them  they  were  required  to  do 
no  servile  work  ;  yet  thought  it  sufficient  to  instance 
the  three  Sabbaths  which  I  mentioned. 

You  seem  to  think  that  by  the  seventh-day  Sabbath 
of  the  Jews,  I  must  mean  some  different  day  from 
that  which  God  appointed  to  Adam.  I  have  not  said 
so.  But  I  will  now  say  what  you  seem  to  have  over- 
looked ;  namely,  that  the  Jews  were  required  to  ob- 
serve the  Seventh  Day  under  a  two  fold  considera- 
tion : — 1.  Because  it  was  the  day  on  which  God  res- 
ted from  his  creative  operations.  Exodus  xx.  10, 
11.  And — 2.  Because  it  was  to  serve  as  a  memo- 
rial of  His  having  brought  them  out  of  Egypt.  Deut. 
v.  14,  15.  In  each  respect,  therefore,  the  Sabbath 
was  both  commemorative  and  typical.  That  the  nat- 
ural creation,  commemorated  by  the  Sabbath,  was 
emblematic  of  the  spiritual  creation,  is  as  obvious 
from  scriptual  allusions,  as  it  is  that  the  natural  birth 
is  emblematical  of  the  spiritual  birth.  And,  by  com- 
paring 1  Pet.  ii.  9,  with  Exo.  xv.  13  and  xix.  6,  any 
one  may  see  that  the  Redemption  and  leading  forth  of 


20  SABBATH     DISCUSSION. 

national  Israel,  were  typical  of  the  Redemption  and 
calling  of  mystical  Israel.  Besides,  the  divine  Lo- 
gos, to  whom  the  old  creation  is  attributed,  (John  i. 
1 — 3.,  Col,  i.  14 — 19)  claims  also  to  be  the  Author 
of  the  neio  creation  :  Behold,  saith  He,  /  inake  all 
tJiings  new.  Rev.  xxi.  5.  Nor  is  it  improbable  that 
He,  tlic  same  yesterday,  to-day  and  forever — He,  with 
whom  one  day  is  as  a  thousand  years,  and  a  thousand 
pears  as  one  day,  having  employed  six  days  in  coib*- 
pleting  the  old  creation,  will  employ  six  thousand 
years,  and  no  more,  in  completing  the  new  creation. 
Heb.  xiii.  8.  2.  Pet.  iii  9.  And,  as  he  is  the  Angel 
of  the  covenant,  by  whom  Isreal  was  brought  out  of 
Eg3q:)t,  so  also  is  He  the  Redeemer  of  the  Church, 
both  by  price  and  power.  Eph.  v.  25.  1  Pet.  18, 
19,  Col.  ii.  15.  Is.  Ixiii.  1 — 6.  In  the  wezo  as  well  as 
in  the  old  creation,  many  wonderful  things  are  as^ 
cribed  to  Christ — and  to  each  day  its  appropriate 
work.  By  Him  a  iieio  dispensation  was  ushered  in  : 
The  law  was  given  hy  Moses,  hut  grace  and  truth 
mme  hy  Jesus  Christ.  John  i.  18.  By  him  ^  new 
church-state,  with  a  new  ordinances,  and  a  neiu  code 
of  discipline  were  introduced  :  Old  thing  are  'passed 
away  ;  behold  all  things  are  become  neiu.  2  Cor.  v. 
17.  Through  Him  comes  the  Holy  Spirit,  renewing 
his  redeemed  after  the  image  of  him  that  created  them. 
See  Acts  ii.  33.  Titus  ii.  14  ;  iii.  5,  6.  Col.  iii. 
10.  And  the  Redemption  of  His  people,  meritorious 
ly  finished  on  the  cross,  (John  xix  30)  and  experi- 
mentally realized  by  faith,  (Rom.  v.  1.  Eph.  i.  7) 
will  be  triumphantly  completed  in  the  resurrection  of 
their  bodies,  when  }1q.\v\\\  fashion  our  vile  body  like 
unto  His  glorious  body.  Rom.  viii.  23.  Philip  iii.  20, 
21. 

Whatever,  therefore,  under  the  name  of  Sabbath, 
appertained  to  the  Jewish  dispensation,  may  justly  be 


SABSATH    DISCUSSION.  21 

regarded  as  typical  of  something  better  to  be  reali- 
zed in  Christ.  Heb.  x.  1.  To  restrict,  as  you 
would  do,  the  rest  treated  of  in  the  fourth  of  He- 
brews, to  the  heavenly  state,  is  at  variance  with 
the  whole  scope  of  the  apostle's  reasoning  in  that 
chapter. 

The  passages  of  Scripture  you  cite,  to  prove  that  it 
was  the  design  of  Christ  to  perpetuate  the  observance 
of  the  seventh  day  Sabbath,  seem  to  me  to  prove  to 
the  contrary.  Aware  that  the  Jews  considered  Him 
as  one  opposed  to  the  law,  and  even  to  the  prophets, 
Christ  would  let  them  know  that  they  utterly  mistook 
his  design  :  Think  not,  said  He,  that  I  am  come  to  de- 
stroy the  law  or  the  prophets  ;  that  is,  to  represent 
the  former  diS  nugatory  ov  the  latter  ^s  false  ;  I  am 
not  come  to  destroy  either <>  but  to  fulfil  both.  Matt 
V.  17.  To  this  end.  He  was  made  under  the  law  ; 
lived  in  perfect  conformity  to  it ;  nay,  hy  the  sacri- 
fice of  himself,  while  He  became  the  fulfilling  end  of 
the  ceremonial  law,  (Rom.  X.  4.  2  Cor.  iii.  13 — 15) 
he  bore,  in  a  way  satisfactory  to  divine  justice,  the 
penalty  of  the  moral  law  ;  for  he  thereby  redeemed 
those  whom  he  represented,  yro??z  the  curse  ofthelaw, 
being  made  a  curse  for  them.  Gal.  iii.  13  ;  iv.  4,  5. 
And,  inH  is  birth,  life,  miracles,  death  and  resurrec- 
tion. He  fulfilled  the  writings  of  the  prophets  respect- 
ing himself,  the  true  Messiah.  Luke  xxiv.  25,  26. 
44,  46.  It  is  true,  that  when  a  certain  young  man, 
inquired  of  Christ,  What  good!  thing  he  might  do,  that 
he  might  have  eternal  life,  Christ,  to  show  the  folly 
of  such  legality,  said  to  him,  '^If  thou  will  enter  into 
life,*'  (that  is,  by  doing)  ''keep  the  commandments  y 
Matt.  xix.  16,  17  ;  yet,  in  ver,  18,  19,  where  He 
specifies  the  commandments  intended,  He  makes  no 
mention  of  the  Sahbath  ;  but  if  he  had  specially  nam- 
ed it,  as  the  Jewish  Sabbath  contixaued  to  His  death? 


23  SABBATH    DISCUSSION. 

the  young  man,  who,  according  to  vcr.  20,  seems  to 
have  been  a  native  Jew,  was  bound  to  keep  it.  Comp. 
Mark.  x.  17,  Luke  xviii  20.  When  I  read  your  as- 
sertion, that  Christ  had  commanded  that  a  religious 
regard  should  be  had  to  the  seventh  day  Sabbath, 
**for  at  least  forty  years  after  his  death  and  the  insti- 
tution of  the  Gospel,"  I  expected  to  find  Scripture  re- 
ferred to,  which  1  had  strangely  overlooked ;  but  when 
I  found  the  reference  was  to  Matt.  xxiv.  20  ;  *'pray 
ye  that  your  flight  be  not  in  the  winter,  neither  on 
the  Sahiath'dayy"  I  could  only  wonder  how  such 
an  interpretation  of  that  passage  had  ever  been  re- 
ceived by  any  intelligent  man.  According  to  Jose- 
phus,  (War,  b.  ii.  c.  19)  Jerusalem  was  first  beseig- 
ed  by  Cestius  Gallus^  president  of  Syria,  who  came 
against  it  with  a  pow-erful  army,  but  who,  v/ithout 
any  sufficient  reason,  withdrew  ;  and,  between  the 
time  of  his  raising  the  seige,  and  the  arrival  of  Titus, 
by  whom  the  city  was  finally  taken,  an  opportunity 
was  providentially  afforded  for  the  Christians  to  flee. 
During  this  interval,  however,  Jewish  usages  still 
prevailed.  By  these,  a  Sabbath  day's  journey  w^as 
fixed  at  tii'o  thousand  cuhitSt  about  07ie  mile,  beyond 
which  the  disciples  would  not  have  been  allowed  to 
travel  on  that  day,  and  which  would  not  have  been 
sufficient  for  their  escape.  Besides,  on  a  Sabbath 
day,  the  gates  of  all  cities  and  towns  in  Judea  were 
shut  and  barred,  so  that  on  that  day  they  could  nei- 
ther have  passed  in  a  direct  course,  nor  have  obtain- 
ed entrance  into  any  place  of  safety.  Well,  there- 
fore, did  Christ  teach  them  to  pray  that  their  flight 
might  not  be  on  the  Sabbath  day,  when  their  escape 
must  have  been  impossible,  and  when  the  attempt 
would  have  provoked  the  unbelieving  Jews  to  indigna- 
tion against  them 

We  know  that  the  Jewish  Sabbath  (speaking  in  our 


SABBATH    DISCUSSION.  2S 

popular  style)  began  on  Friday  evening  at  sunset  and 
ended  on  Saturday  evening  at  sunset.  Hence,  ac- 
customed to  a  similar  way  of  calculation,  you  seem 
to  think,  that  the  first  time  Christ,  after  his  resur- 
rection, met  with  his  disciples,  was  not  properly  a 
meeting  with  them  on  the  first  clay  of  the  2ceek,  because 
it  occurred  in  the  evening  of  that  day.  But  you  cer- 
tainly know,  that  we  observe  the  first  day  of  the  iceekr 
as  commencing  with  the  resurrection  of  Christ.  And 
though  we  cannot  ascertain  the  precise  moment,  nor 
hour,  at  which  He  rose,  we  know  that  those  who 
first  discovered  that  His  sacred  body  was  removedl 
from  the  sepulchre,  had  gone  to  the  place  early,  very 
early  in  the  morning  ;  nay,  Mary  Magdalene  arrived 
there,  on  her  first  visit,  lohen  it  was  yet  dark.  John. 
XX.  7.  But,  whether  He  had  then  just  risen,  or  wheth- 
er He  rose  at  midnight,  as  is  most  probable,  no  man, 
I  think,  is  prepared  to  assert.  In  either  case,  how- 
ever, the  meeting  of  the  disciples  on  the  ensuing  eve- 
ning was  a  meeting  held  on  that  day.  Nor  is  the  sup- 
position, that  Christ  rose  at  midnight,  at  all  inconsis- 
tent with  His  prediction  that,  as  the  Antitype  of  Jo- 
nah, He  should  he  three  days  and  three  nights  in  the 
heart  of  the  earth,  that  is,  under  its  surface  ;  Matt, 
xii.  40  ;  or  His  repeated  declaration  that  he  should 
rise  on  the  third  day.  Nevertheless,  to  demonstrate 
it,  both  you  and  I  must  avail  ourselves  of  a  peculiar 
mode  of  calculating  days — a  mode  rarely  used  except 
by  the  Jews,  and,  by  them,  only  in  regard  to  sacred 
times.  By  a  day  and  night,  thus  calculated,  they 
mean  a  natural  day  of  twenty-four  hours  ;  which  the 
apostle  Paul  calls  a  nuchthemeron,  a  night-day.  Cor. 
xi.  25.  Hence,  in  regard  to  the  times  of  holding  their 
festivals — the  time  of  circumcising  a  child,  &c.,  they 
counted  any  part  of  the  natural  day  in  which  such 
time  commenced  or  ended,  as  a  whole  night-day. — 
b2 


24  SABBATH    DI6CUSBI0N. 

Now,  as  we  know  from  Matt,  xxvii.  46,  50,  that 
Christ  expired  on  the  cross  at  about  the  ninth  hour  of 
tlie  day,  that  is,  at  about  three  o'clock  in  the  after- 
noon, so,  from  John  xix.  31 — 42,  we  know  that  this 
was  on  Friday,  it  being  the  day  of  preparation  for 
the  Sabbath — also  that  the  Jews,  to  prevent  desecra- 
tion of  their  Sabbath,  caused  his  body  to  be  taken  down 
from  the  cross,  and  that  his  friends,  in  conformity  to 
Jewish  usage,  dispatched  his  interment  before  the 
commencement  of  the  Sabbath,  which  was  at  sunseL 
In  this  calculation,  therefore,  the  time,  though  it  may 
have  been  but  an  hour,  more  or  less,  during  which 
Christ  lay  in  the  sepulchre  before  sunset  on  Friday, 
is  reckoned  as  the  whole  of  the  night-day  to  which  it 
belonged  ;  the  second  night-day,  from  sunset  on  Fri- 
day till  sunset  on  Saturday,  was  entire  ;  and  reckon- 
ing the  time  that  followed  till  he  I'ose,  as  another 
night-day,  we  have  the  three  night-days,  or  days  and 
nights  intended  by  his  prophecy  and  declaration  ; 
though  if  He  rose  at  midnight.  He  lay  in  the  tomb  a 
little  more  than  thirty-six  hours.  Compare  1  Samuel 
XXX.  12, 13.  Nor  do  I  recollect  that  the  Jews,  among 
all  their  objections  to  the  history  of  Jesus,  have  ever 
offered  any  to  this  mode  of  calculating  the  time  be- 
tween His  interment  and  resurrection.  We  return  to 
the  meeting  in  question. 

As  to  the  two  disciples,  who  had  been  sad  and 
doubtful,  I  hope  you  will  excuse  them,  though  they 
had  traveled  some  part  of  the  day,  and  got  late  to 
meeting ;  and  surely  the  rest  are  not  to  be  blamed  fop 
the  absence  of  Thomas.  We  think  it  of  little  impor- 
tance how  many  of  the  disciples  met  on  that  evening, 
since  we  know  that  Christ  sanctioned  the  meeting 
with  His  presence — a  favor  which  He  had  promised 
to  grant,  where  even  two  or  three  should  be  gathered 
in  his  name.     Matt,  xviii.  20.     Besides,  though  by 


SABBATH     DISCUSSION.  25 

the  fall  of  Judas  and  the  absence  of  Thomas,  only 
ten  were  present,  an  apostle  calls  them  tlie  twelve  ;  1 
Cor.  XV.  5  ;  just  as  the  sons  of  Jacob,  though  in  the 
absence  of  two,  were  called  twelve:  Gen.  xlii.  13; 
an  allusion,  in  each  case,  being  had  to  the  original 
number,  and  current  denomination.  Thus  we  speak 
of  Congress — of  a  court — a  council — a  committee, 
&C.,  whether  every  member  be  present  or  not. 

The  words  after  eight  days,  (John  xix.  26)  yield 
no  evidence,  that  it  was  not  on  the  next  first-day  eve- 
ning that  Christ  met  with  his  assembled  disciples  a- 
gain  ;  Thomas  being  present.  For,  according  to  Jo- 
sephus,  (x\ntiq.  L.  7.  c.  9.)  the  Jews  often  noted  a 
week  by  the  phrase  eight  days.  Besides,  it  is  evident, 
that  the  Evangelists  calculated  a  week,  either  by  in- 
cluding two  extremes,  or  by  omitting  both  ;  calling 
it,  according  to  the  former  way  of  calculation,  an 
d^ght  days  ;  Luke  ix.  28  ;  and  according  to  the  lat- 
ter, six  days.  Matt.  xvii.  1.  The  same  way  of 
speaking,  too,  is  common  among  physicians  ;  with 
whom  a  Tertian  or  a  Quartan  ague  or  fever,  always 
includes  both  extremes.  Supposing,  for  instance, 
the  first  paroxisms  to  happen  on  Friday,  and  the  next 
on  Sunday,  though  but  one  day  intervenes,  and 
though,  strictly  speaking,  it  occurs  every  other  day, 
yet  professionally,  it  is  called  a  Tertian,  a  third-dsiy 
paroxism  ;  and,  supposing  the  first  paroxism  to  be  on 
Friday,  and  the  next  on  Monday,  though  only  two 
days  intervene,  and  though  it  is  vulgarly  called  a 
ijiird  day  ague,  it  is,  nevertheless,  professionally 
styled  a  Quartan,  a  fourth-dsiy  fever  or  ague  ;  the 
last  of  these  days,  always  being  counted  as  the  first 
of  the  succeeding  cycle. 

With  my  assertion  that  the  day  of  Pentecost,  on 
which  the  Holy  Ghost  was  given,  was  the  first  day  of 
the  week,  I  remain  perfectly  satisfied  ;    finding  it 


26  SABBATH    DISCUSSION. 

to  be  sustained  both  by  Scripture,  and  by  the  best 
human  authorities.  By  saying  that  Drs.  Brown 
and  Lightfoot  admit  that  the  Pentecost  in  question 
fell  on  the  seventh  day,  you  really  astonish  me.  The 
only  way  by  which  I  can  excuse  you,  is  to  suppose 
that  you  have  never  read  the  works  of  those  Doctors, 
and  that  you  relied  on  the  testimony  of  some  scrib- 
bler, who  either  ignorantly  or  wickedly  had  made 
the  assertion.  Dr.  Lightfoot,  (Works,  vol  i.  p. 
747,  &c.)  on  the  contrary,  most  lucidly  demonstrates 
that  the  day  in  dispute,  was  the  first  day  of  the  week  ; 
and  Dr.  Brown,  (Antiq.  vol.  i.  p.  446)  asserts  the 
same,  and  refers  to  Lightfoot  in  support  of  it.* 

I  repeat,  and  with  the  fullest  confidence,  what  you 
call  singular ;  namely,  that,  in  tracing  the  New 
Testament  history  of  the  disciples,  after  their  Lord's 
resurrection,  "though  we  find  not  a  single  instance 
of  their  having  observed  the  seventh  day  Sabbath, 
as  such,  we  find  abundant  evidence  that  they  stated- 
ly met  on  the /r^^  day  of  the  week."  That  it  was 
lawful  for  the  apostles  then,  as  for  Gospel  ministers 
nolo,  to  preach  on  any  day  and  in  any  place,  when 
and  where  permitted  to  do  so,  cannot  be  questioned. 
And  all  the  passages  you  refer  to,  (which  are  Acts 
xiii.  14,  42,  44.  xvi.  13.  xvii.  2  xviii.  4.)  as  in- 
stances of  the  apostles  having  observed  the  seventh 
day  Sabbath,  after  their  Master's  resurrection,  are 
only  so  many  proofs  that  the  unbelieving  Jews  con- 
tinued to  observe  that  day,  and  that  the  apostles  avail- 
ed themselves  of  the  successive  returns  of  it,  as  af- 

*Arter  writing  the  above,  I  discovered  that  you  had  only  repea- 
ted an  assertion  made  by  the  vrriter  of  the  notes  attached  to  Btjrn- 
s  IDE  on  the  Sabbath.  Ainer.  Pub.  Notes  on  p.  159.  Ho  w  littie 
credit,  then,  is  due  to  the  assertions,  and  even  to  the  refer- 
ences, made  in  those  notes!  That  the  writer  of  thein  differed,  in 
some  respects,  from  Mr.  Burnside,  appears  by  his  notes  on  p. 
152. 


SABBATH    DISCUSSION.  27 

fording  convenient  opportunities  for  preaching  Christ 
to  their  national  brethren,  assembled  in  their  Syiia- 
gogiies,  or  at  their  Proseuchas,  places  of  prayer.— 
Wherefore,  to  consider  these  as  instances  of  the  apos- 
tles' observance  of  the  seventh  day  Sabbath,  as  such, 
is  quite  as  absurd  as  to  consider  the  opportunities  ta- 
ken by  Christian  missionaries,  to  preach  the  Gospel 
to  the  heathen,  assembled  at  their  idolatrous  festivals, 
as  proofs  that  they  acknowledge  the  sanctity  of  those 
festivals.  Comp.  Acts  xvii.  When  Paul  (Acts  xxviii. 
17,  asserted  that  he  had  done  nothing  against  the 
customs  of  \\\Q  fathers^  he  must  necessarily  be  un- 
derstood with  restriction  for  otherwise  he  remained  a 
practical  Jew.  The  latter  we  know  he  was  not.  He 
must  have  meant,  that  he  had  given  the  Jews  no  just 
cause  of  offense,  by  any  outrage  against  their  cus- 
toms ;  or  that,  intending  by  the  fathers  such  as  Mo- 
ses and  the  prophets,  he  had  preached  in  perfect  ac- 
cordance with  their  writings.  See  Acts  xxvi.  22,  23. 

Whether  Acts  xx  7,  and  I  Cor.  xvi.  2,  do,  or  do  not 
furnish  abundant  evidence  that  the  primitive  Chris- 
tians habitually  met  on  the  first  day  of  the  week,  I 
leave  to  the  decision  of  every  candid  reader. 

Hoping  that  I  have  said  nothing  offensive,  I  con- 
clude, respectfully  yours= 

WM.  PARKINSON. 


LETTER  III. 


To  THE  Rev.  Mr.  Parkinson. 

February  1835, 

Dear  Sir, — The  object  of  my  former  communica- 
tion was  to  show  that  the  observance  of  the  seventh 
day  of  the  week  is  not  deserving  of  the  censure  you 
was  pleased  to  put  upon  it,  and  that  it  has  a  Scriptu- 
ral claim  to  be  viewed  in  a  more  friendly  light.  I 
mentioned  some  of  the  remarks  in  the  appendix  of 
your  Summary  which  I  thought  erroneous,  and  stated 
my  own  views,  in  part,  as  to  the  claims  of  the  sev- 
enth, and  first  day  to  sanctification.  If  in  that  ar- 
ticle there  is  any  thing  disrespectful,  it  was  unde- 
signed, and  I  hope  you  will  pardon  it ;  and  that  I 
shall  ^iwQ  you  no  cause  of  offense  in  a  few  remarks 
upon  your  reply. 

The  whole  difference  between  us  on  the  subject 
turns  upon  the  validity  of  the  Decalogue.  If  that 
code  is  recognised  by  Christ  and  the  apostles,  as  is 
maintained  by  almost  every  sect  of  Christians  in  the 
world,  as  well  as  by  a  respectable  portion  of  your 
own  connection, — the  Sabbatic  law  is  still  in  force  ; 
and  it  is  the  duty  of  the  Church  and  the  world  at 
large  to  observe  the  Sabbath  of  the  fourth  command- 
ment. If  not,  we  have  no  Divine  appointment  of 
any  particular  day  for  rest  and  devotion,  and   the 


SABBATH    DISCUSSION. 


29 


observation  of  the  Sabbath  may  be  viewed  as  St 
Paul  does  ritual  observances  in  Rom.  14th  oh.  as 
an  innocent  thing  ;  where  he  exhorts  his  brethren  to 
forbear  judging  one  another  on  account  of  these 
things.  Whether,  therefore,  the  observance  of  the 
Sabbath  be  a  conformity  to  an  existing  law  of  God, 
or  the  continuance  of  a  typical  rite,  we  have  the  fel- 
lowship of  the  apostles  and  primitive  Church,  with 
whom,  more  than  all  others,  it  is  our  interest  to  be 
in  union.  If  on  this  account  we  are  blamed,  we 
ought  not  to  complain,  since  the  censure  falls  with 
equal  weight  upon  Paul,  Peter,  and  James,  and  all 
the  Elders  of  the  apostolic  Church,  who  were  ac- 
cessory to  PauFs  performing  certain  rites  in  the 
temple,  for  which  you  think  God  was  so  highly  dis- 
pleased with  him.  The  time  for  the  Church  to  be  evan- 
gelic [say  you]  had  not  yet  come,  although  it  had  been 
established  nearly  thirty  years.  But  we  have  as  little 
interest  in  the  continuance  of  the  Jewish  rites  as 
yourself,  although  we  may  not  have  indulged  in  so 
much  acrimony  against  them.  My  object  in  these 
remarks  is  to  furnish  reasons  for  better  feeling  for 
those  who  observe  the  Sabbath,  as  such. 

Had  you  proved  that  the  weekly  Sabbath  was  a 
Jewish  ceremony,  and  designed  only  as  a  type  of 
the  Gospel  dispensation,  as  you  suppose  you  have 
done,  and  which  is  the  pivot  on  which  turns  all  your 
subsequent  remarks,  we  would  no  longer  contend  fox 
it ;  but  I  hope  you  will  excuse  me  when  I  say,  that  I 
believe  neither  yourself,  nor  any  other  person  has 
ever  done  it.  You  seem  entirely  to  have  overlooked 
the  circumstances,  that  when  the  Sabbath  was  in- 
stituted, sin  had  not  come  into  the  world,  and,  there- 
fore, did  not  originate  in  the  grace  of  God  to  sinners, 
nor  could  it  be  effected  by  that  plan  of  grace  reveal- 
ed e^nd  completed  in  Christ.     Its   early  institution 


30  SABBATH    DISCUSSION. 

proves  its  importance  to  sinless  beings,  and  it  became 
still  more  so  by  their  subsequent  apostasy.  It  was 
a  symbol  of  the  felicity  of  Heaven,  to  which  men 
would  undoubtedly  have  been  ultimately  exalted, 
had  they  remained  innocent ;  and  it  is  still  a  type  of 
that  rest  which  shall  be  enjoyed  by  those  who  are  ac- 
cepted in  Christ,  as  is  asserted  in  lieb.  4th  ch.  It  is 
therefore  of  a  moral  character,  originating  in  the 
relations  existing  between  men  and  their  Maker,  and 
the  different  orders  of  His  creatures.  Hence  God 
placed  it  among  the  laws  of  the  Decalogue,  which 
are  universally  admitted  to  be  of  a  moral  nature,  and 
designed  to  be  a  universal  rule  of  conduct.  As  such, 
the  civil  law  has  interfered  in  its  behalf,  and  upon 
this  principle,  the  observance  of  a  weekly  day  of  rest 
has  so  generally  obtained  among  all  classes  of  men. 
And,  I  say  it  without  the  fear  of  contradiction,  that 
this  observation  of  the  first  day,  has  obtained  its  pop- 
ularity from  a  persuasion  that  it  is  sanctioned  by  the 
fourth  commandment.  As  a  commemorative  of  cre- 
ation, all  men  have  an  interest  in  it,  and  are  bound 
to  regard  it;  but  as  a  Gospel  commemorative,  it 
could  no  more  be  the  duty  of  ungenerate  men,  than 
eating  the  Lord's  supper.  The  fourth  command- 
ment protects  the  right  of  servants  and  cattle,  and 
entitles  them  to  a  day  of  rest  ;  if  the  commandment 
be  abolished,  this  restriction  is  off,  and  their  masters 
have  an  indisputed  right  to  their  service  the  whole 
time.  This  would  be  a  singular  provisions  of  the 
Gospel.  As  the  Gospel  has  no  antitype  for  this  sec- 
tion of  the  law,  it  cannot  abolish  it.  Again,  if  the 
Sabbath  law  expired  with  Jewish  rites,  the  whole  ar- 
rangement of  the  week  is  prostrated,  and  we  have  no 
longer  a  divine  rule  for  its  measure. 

If  the  supposed  examples  of  the  first  Christians  are 
to  be  taken  for  a  rule  of  duty,  the  measures  of  those 


EABBATH    DISCUSSION.  31 

example  must  be  the  rule  of  the  duties  required  ;  for 
it  is  at  variance  with  all  just  reasoning,  to  urge  the 
duty  beyond  the  example.  The  example  in  question, 
therefore,  could  apply  to  none  but  disciples,  and  to  them 
to  a  very  limited  extent.  Whether  what  is  said  in  the 
New  Testament  is  sufficiently  clear  to  establish  this 
duty,  and  to  set  aside  a  primary  and  fundamental  law 
of  God,  the  candid  reader  must  judge. 

The  pertinency  of  my  remark  relative  to  being 
justified  and  saved  by  observing  the  Sabbath,  v\-ill 
appear  by  the  fact  that  the  Jews  did  expect  salvation 
by  their  legal  obedience  :  otherwise  St.  Paul  labored 
without  an  object,  and  his  lucid  exposure  of  the  folly 
of  such  a  hope,  must  have  been  uncalled  for.  See  the 
Epistle  to  the  Galatians. 

I  have  not  intimated  that  you  have  said  you  sup- 
posed the  seventh  day  of  the  Jews  was  a  differ- 
ent one  from  that  originally  sanctified  ;  but  what 
other  inference  can  be  drawn  from  what  you  have 
said  ?  If  I  mistook  your  meaning  you  could  have 
easily  corrected  me. 

Deut.  V.  14,  15,  which  you  think  I  have  overlook- 
ed, could  not  be  designed  to  represent  the  Sabbath  a 
ceremonial  institution,  or  a  memorial  of  the  Jews' 
deliverance  from  bondage  ;  for  the  same  considera- 
tion is  urged  in  the  preface  to  the  Decalogue,  Ex.  xx. 
1.  It  would,  upon  your  understanding  of  it,  prove 
altogether  too  much  for  your  purpose  ;  for  it  would 
make  every  moral  duty  a  mere  ceremony — a  memo- 
rial of  the  deliverance  of  the  Hebrews  from  Egyp- 
tian bondage.  Besides  this,  it  is  at  variance  with 
the  understanding  the  Jews  themselves  had  of  it,  if 
we  can  credit  Josephus.  He  says  Antiq.  L.  1.  C.  1. 
that  it  is  from  God's  resting  on  the  Seventh  Day  from 
creative  operations,  that  they  rested  from  their  labors 
on  that  day,  and  called  it  the  Sahhath. 


82  SABBATH    DISCUSSION. 

I  did,  indeed,  refer  to  certain  texts  to  show  that 
Christ  designed  that  the  Sabbath  should  be  perpetua- 
ted ;  but  how  these  passages  could  seem  to  prove 
the  contrary,  I  am  as  much  astonished  as  you  was, 
how  such  an  interpretatio7i  could  be  given  them  by  any 
intelligent  man.  Every  man  will  admit  that  Matt 
V.  17 — 20,  refers  to  the  Decalogue  collectively,  and 
that  the  law  of  the  Sabbath  is  contained  in  it ;  and 
also  that  Christ  has  prohibited  the  violation,  or  teach- 
ing contrary  to  any  one  of  these  precepts.  Now,  is 
not  a  desecration  of  the  Sabbath,  and  teaching  others 
so  to  do,  an  infringement  upon  what  is  here  forbid- 
den ]  If  it  is  not,  I  would  ask,  what  is  here  proliib- 
ited? 

You  had  less  reason  for  being  surprised  than  you 
supposed  you  had,  that  I  should  understand  Matt 
xiv.  24,  as  implying  the  perpetuity  of  the  Sabbath  ; 
for  you  certainly  must  know  that  this  text  has  been 
so  understood  by  men  of  intelligence,  and  cited  for  the 
same  purpose.  Rev.  John  Willison,  in  his  work  on 
the  Sabbath,  Am.  Ed.  1820,  p.  45,  urges  this  text  for 
this  purpose.  So  also  does  Dr.  Ridgeley  ;  see  his 
System  of  Divinity,  vol.  3.  See  also  Dr.  Hum- 
phrey's Essay  on  the  Sabbath  :  also  a  prize  Essay 
on  the  Sabbath  published  in  the  Utica  Christian  Mag- 
azine for  1815. 

The  omission  of  the  Sabbath,  Matt  xix.  17,  could 
be  no  more  designed  to  undervalue  it,  than  the  like 
amission  of  the  preceding  commands  could  have  been 
designed  to  represent  them  as  unimportant. 

I  have  expressed  no  doubts  as  to  the  first  interview 
of  the  disciples  after  the  resurrection  occurring  prop- 
erly on  the  first  day  of  the  week.  I  mentioned  thoae 
facts  relative  to  that  meeting  to  show  the  improba- 
bility of  its  being  concerted,  and  especially  on  ac- 
oouTxt  of  the  resurrection  ;  as  they  were  not  con  via- 


SABBATH    DISCUSSIOX.  33 

ced  of  the  fact  till  after  they  were  assembled  ;  and  we 
are  told  expressly,  John  xxi.  19,  that  they  were  as- 
sembled for  fear  of  the  Jews. 

I  must  be  excused  for  not  knowing  that  you  ob- 
serve the  first  day  as  commencing  with  the  resur- 
rection ;  for  how  should  I  know  1  You  admit  you  do 
not  know  at  what  time  Christ  arose,  how  then  can 
you  commence  your  observance  with  that  event  ? 
The  common  opinion  is,  that  it  was  in  the  morning, 
yet  many  who  observe  the  first  day  commence  it  m 
tlie  evening ;  perhaps  a  greater  part  at  midnight, 
when  you  think  the  event  took  place.  I  might  sup- 
pose it  was  in  the  preceding  evening,  and  who  could 
gainsay  it  ?  To  me  it  is  immaterial,  inasmuch  as  I 
am  convinced  of  its  truth.  The  want  of  informa- 
tion on  this  point,  and  the  silence  of  the  Scriptures  as 
to  its  rendering  the  day  on  which  it  occurred  in  its 
weekly  returns,  pre-eminent,  are  to  me  sufficient  rea- 
sons for  believing  it  was  not  designed.  I  have  no 
doubt  that  the  prediction,  Matt.  xii.  40,  was  fulfilled. 
We  know  that  Christ  died  on  the  preparation,  and 
that  it  was  the  day  before  the  Sabbath,  and  we  learn 
from  John  xix.  14,  that  it  was  the  preparations  of  the 
Passover  It  was  therefore  the  paschal  Sabbath,  the 
highest  festival  in  the  year,  called,  verse  31,  a  high 
day  ;  and  it  is  not  called  the  preparation  of  any  oth- 
er Sabbath.  We  have  no  other  information,  than  tra- 
ditional, to  make  us  know  that  it  was  on  Friday.  I 
am  under  no  necessity,  therefore,  of  clipping  the 
days  of  their  usual  length,  in  order  to  demonstrate 
the  fulfillment  of  the  prediction.  We  could  have  no 
particular  interest  in  the  precise  meaning  of  the 
phrase  '•''After  eight  days,^^  John  xxi.  26,  if  it  were 
not  cited  to  establish  an  important  religious  practice, 
in  opposition  to  an  ancient  law  of  God.  You  must 
be  mistaken  in  your  reference  to  Josephus,  as  it  does 


34  SABBATH    DISCUSSION. 

not  afford  the  evidence  for  which  it  was  made.  The 
passages  you  have  referred  to  in  Matthew  and  Luke 
do  not,  in  my  opinion,  go  to  establish  the  meaning 
o'i  after  eight  days,  Matt.  xvii.  1,  Mark  ix.  2,  and 
Luke  ix.  28,  speak  of  the  same  event.  The  two 
former  say  it  was  after  six  days,  which  must  be  as 
late  as  the  seventh,  and  the  latter,  evidently  designed 
not  to  be  definite,  says  it  was  about  eight  days.  Now 
it  is  not  very  probable  that  after  six  days  and  after 
eight  days,  were  designed  to  signify  the  same  niun- 
ber.  This  mode  of  speaking  among  physicians, 
relative  to  intermitting  fevers,  is  entirely   irrelevant. 

The  only  object  I  had  in  the  remark,  that  Doctors 
Brown  and  Lightfoot  admitted  that  the  Pentecost  iu 
question  fell  upon  the  seventh  day,  was  to  show  that 
tiiere  was  not  a  perfect  agreement  of  sentiment  on 
the  subject.  I  suppose  it  to  be  correct,  and  still 
think  that  Dr.  Brown  has  warranted  the  remark  ; 
but  be  that  as  it  may,  the  point  in  question  is  not  af- 
fected. Burnside  shows,  p.  152,  that  there  was  not  a 
uniformity  of  opinion  on  this  point  ;  and  R.  Corn- 
thwaite,  in  his  work  on  the  Sabbath,  London,  1740, 
gives  as  the  common  account,  that  Pentecosts  hap- 
pened that  year  upon  the  seventh  day,  and  not  upon 
the  first. 

You  call  it  an  absurdity  to  consider  the  constant 
attendance  of  the  apostles  upon  public  worship  on 
tlie  Sabbath,  an  evidence  that  they  regarded  it,  as 
such.  But  what  evidence  does  the  Scriptures  give 
of  this  absurdity  ?  It  was  well  known  to  be  a  law 
of  God,  and  no  intimation  is  give  that  it  was  repeal- 
ed, or  that  they  were  ever  indifferent  about  it,  nor 
that  any  other  day  was  designed  to  supercede  it.  Is 
it  not  rather  absurd  to  suppose  that  two  ensuing  meet- 
ings on  the  first  day,  in  places  as  different  frorr 
each  other  as  was   Jerusalem  from   Troas,  compo 


SABBATH    DISCUSSIOX.  35 

eed  entirely  of  different  persons,  met  for  different 
purposes,  and  about  twenty-seven  years  distant  in 
point  of  time,  is  sufficient  evidence  that  the  whole 
Church  regarded  that  day  as  a  stated  season  of  wor- 
sliip  ? 

You  think  we  must  understand  St.  Paul  with  re- 
striction when  he  asserts,  in  Acts  xxviii.  17,  that  he 
had  done  nothing  against  the  custom  of  the  fathers, 
**as  otherwise,"  you  observe,  "he  must  be  a  practi- 
cal Jew,  which  we  know  he  was  not.''  x\lthough 
Paul  constantly  taught  the  impropriety  of  the  Gen- 
tile converts  adopting  the  Jewish  peculiarities,  and 
that  the  Jews  were  no  longer  bound  by  them,  we 
have  no  evidence  that  he  ever  practically  abandoned 
them,  and  if  this  makes  him  a  practical  Jew,  he  was 
undoubtedly  one.  If  it  were  not  so,  his  going  into 
the  temple  by  the  advice  of  the  apostles  and  elders 
of  the  Church,  as  recorded  in  Acts  xxi.  20,  24,  was 
not  only  an  act  of  gross  duplicity  on  thepart  of  Paul, 
but  the  leaders  of  the  Church  were  also  guilty  of  most 
astonishing  dissimulation, 

I  am  yours,  respectfully, 

W.  B.  MAXSON. 


LETTER    IV. 


To  THE  Rev.  Mr.  Maxson. 

March,  1835. 
Dear  Sir, — In  your  second  communication,  now 
before  me,  you  say,  *'The  whole  difference  between 
us  on  this  subject,  (the  Sabbath)  turns  upon  the  va- 
lidity of  the  Decalogue.''  By  the  validity  of  the 
decalogue,  in  this  respect,  I  understand  you  to  mean 
its  sufficiency  to  determine  what  day  of  the  week  God 
appointed  to  be  observed,  as  a  day  of  rest  and  devo- 
tion, under  the  Christian,  as  well  as  under  the  Jewish 
dispensation — as  also  the  manner  in  which  it  should 
be  observed.  But  if  so,  I  am  utterly  unable  to  dis- 
cover, that  any  but  Jews  and  those  proselyted  to 
Judaism,  have  ever  been,  or  that,  without  a  new  rev- 
elation, they  ever  can  be,  required  to  sanctify  any 
one  day  of  the  week  more,  than  another.  For, 
though  the  law  of  nature — that  law  of  which  the 
written  law,  in  regard  to  moral  duty,  is  but  a  verbal 
copy, — has  always  been,  and  must  continue  to  be,  as 
divinely  binding  on  all  Adam's  posterit}^  as  it  was  on 
himself,  the  decalogue,  as  such,  was  delivered  only 
to  national  Israel,  whom  God  had  brought  out  of 
Egypt.  This  is  manifest  from  its  inspired  preface, 
which  runs  thus:  '*  And  God  spake  all  these  words," 
the  words  of  the  decalogue,  *' saying,  I  amtJie  Lord 


SABBATH     DISCUSSION.  37 

ihy  God,  loho  brought  thee  out  of  Egypt,  out  of  the 
house  of  bondage,  Thou  shalt  have  no  other  gods 
before  rne,^^  8fc.  8fc. 

Of  the  decalogue  you  further  say,  "If  that  code 
is  recognized  by  Christ  and  the  apostles,  ....  the 
Sabbatic  law  is  still  in  force,  and  it  is  the  duty  of  the 
Church  and  the  world  at  large,  to  observe  the  Sab- 
bath of  the  fourth  commandment.''  That  Christ  and 
his  apostles  recognized  the  decalogue,  in  regard  to 
its  moral  injunctions  and  prohibitions,  there  can  be 
no  question  ;  indeed  it  would  have  been  more  than 
strange  if  they  had  not.  Christ  recognized  the  mor- 
ality of  the  decalogue,  as  a  standard  of  perfection, 
whereby  he  showed  to  his  Jewish  disciples,  and  to 
all  who  read  or  hear  his  words,  that  they  must  have 
a  better  righteousness  than  that  of  the  scribes  and 
pharisees,  who  were  the  greatest  sticklers  for  legal 
observances,  or  not  be  admitted  into  the  kingdom  of 
Heaven,  but  remain  guilty  before  God  ;  for,  remov- 
ing the  false  glosses  which  pharisaic  interpretation 
had  put  upon  the  law,  and  exhibiting  its  claims  to 
cordial  as  well  as  'practical  conformity.  He  shows 
that  causeless  anger  renders  the  offender  liable  to  the 
judgment  ;  Matt.  v.  21,  22 ;  that  a  lascivious  look, 
or  a  lustful  desire,  is  adultery  at  heart ;  ver.  27,  28  ; 
that  in  common  discourse,  any  asseveration  more 
than  Yea,  yea,  or  Nay,  nay,  *'cometh  of  evil  ;"  ver. 
33 — 37  ;  that,  instead  of  exacting  the  judicial  law  of 
retaliation,  (Exo.  xxi.  22 — 27)  His  disciples,  in  their 
private  treatment  of  all,  should  return  good  for  evil  ; 
and  that,  instead  of  restricting  their  love,  as  taught 
by  the  doctrine  and  examples  of  the  pharisees,  to 
those  of  their  own  sect,  they  should  extend  it  to  all, 
even  to  their  enemies  ;  that  so  by  imitation,  they 
might  be  manifestly  the  children  of  their  heavenly 
Father.     See  from  ver.  43  to  ver.  48,     In  like  man- 


38  SABBATH    DISCUSSION. 

ner,  also,  did  the  apostles  recognize  the  moral  re- 
quirements of  the  Decalogue  ;  that  is,  to  show  that  it 
is  impossible  for  any  of  the  human  race  to  be  justi- 
fied by  "the  deeds  of  the  law,"  and  therefore,  that 
the  Gospel  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith  in  Christ, 
was  every  where  eqiially  necessary.  See  Jas.  i.  16 
—27.  ii.  8—23.  I  John  iif.  15—171  Rom.  iii.  10—28. 
xii.  17  21.  xxiii,  8 — 10.  But,  in  all  this  New-Tes- 
tament recognition  of  the  pure  and  unalterable  mor- 
ality of  the  Decalogue,  where  do  we  find  any  men- 
tion made  of  the  Sabbath — or  any  reference,  or  even 
allusion  to  the  fourth  commandment  1  It  would  be  in 
vain  to  say,  it  is  included  in  the  words  of  the  apostle 
last  referred  to,  wherein  he  sa5'^s,  "and  if  there  be 
any  other  commandment,  it  is  briefly  comprehended 
in  this  saying,  namely,  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neigh- 
bor as  thyself  5"  for  this  is  not  a  recognition  of  the 
fourth  commandment,  but,  of  the  first  and  chief 
commandment  of  the  second  table.  See  Ma.tt.  xxii. 
37—40. 

Hence  it  is  fairly  to  be  inferred,  that  the  fourth 
commandment,  enjoining  the  observance  of  the  sev- 
enth day  Sabbath,  is,  in  its  nature,  not  moral  but 
jwsiiive.  Ot  this  opinion  was  the  venerable  and 
learned  Burnside  himself,  though  the  ablest  modern 
advocate  that  has  appeared  on  the  Sabbatarian  side 
of  the  question  before  us.  He  says,  (p.  24.)  "the 
common,  and,  I  think,  the  correct  and  accurate  no- 
tion of  a  moral  precept,  is,  an  obligation  dictated  by 
reason,  and  discoverable  by  the  light  of  nature.'' — 
Now,  however  strongly  reason  dictates,  and  howev- 
er clearly  the  light  of  nature  discovers,  that  mankind 
ought  to  love  and  worship  God,  their  Creator,  Pre- 
server, and  Benefactor,  and  to  observe  honesty,  pu- 
rity, and  benevolence  toward  each  other,  all  must  be 
sensible,  that,  without  revelation,  reason  would  nev- 


SABBATH    DISCUSSION.  39 

er  have  dictated,  nor  the  light  of  nature  have  discov- 
ered, as  a  duty,  the  special  sanctification  of  one  day 
in  seven,  and  much  less  ivhich  day  of  seven,  should 
be  so  sanctified. 

The  common  argument  raised  by  those  who  ad- 
vocate the  moral  nature  of  the  fourth  commandment 
is,  that  it  is  placed  in  the  decalogue,  and  therefore, 
among  the  commandments  that  are  unquestionably 
moral.  This,  at  first  view,  seems  plausible  ;  but, 
when  it  is  recollected,  that  the  decalogue  itself,  as  a 
whole,  was  delivered  only  to  national  Israel,  a  people 
bound  to  observe  the  seventh  day  Sabbath,  positively 
enjoined  by  the  fourth  commandment,  the  argument 
becomes  impertinent  and  futile  ;  and  especially  so, 
when  the  fact  is  observed,  that  wherever  the  moral 
precepts  of  the  decalogue  are  stated,  (except  in  some 
address  to  the  Jews,)  no  mention  is  made  of  the  Sab- 
bath law,  nor  any  thing  said  that  implies  it.  Such, 
without  exception,  are  the  citations  made  from  the 
Decalogue,  by  Christ  and  his  apostles.  Witness 
Matt.  xix.  16  ;  Luke  x.  27  ;  xvii.  20,  21  ;  Rom. 
xii.  9  ;  Isa.  ii.  10,  26,  v/ith  all  the  rest  that  you  can 
find,  there  being  several  more.  Besides,  *'the  in- 
junction to  observe  the  Sabbath  of  the  fourth  com- 
mandment'' is  sometimes  associated  with  the  injunc- 
tion to  observe  the  annual  sabbaths,  which,  surely, 
you  will  admit  to  have  been  positive  institutions. 
See,  among  other  places,  Exod.  xxiii.  10 — 19  ;  and 
xxxi.  13—15. 

But  that  the  Sabbath  law,  in  its  nature,  was  not 
moral  but  positive,  and  therefore,  susceptible  of  oc- 
casional intermissions,  is  put  out  of  all  reasonable 
doubt,  by  the  example  of  Christ,  and  by  his  vihdica- 
tion  of  His  disciples,  in  acts  at  variance  with  the  law. 
That  Christ  never  committed  nor  sanctioned  any  vi- 
olation of  the  moral  law,  is  certain  ;  for  He  did  no^ 
c2 


40 


SABBATH    DISCUSSION. 


sin,  neither  ivas  guile  found  in  his  mouth.  I  Pet.  ii. 
22.  He  was  not  only  holy  in  nature,  but  also  harm- 
less in  life.  Heb.  vii.  26.  Yet  he  both  did  and  sanc- 
tioned what  was  forbidden  according  to  the  Sabbath 
law.  According  to  this  law,  the  Jews  were  forbid- 
den to  carry  any  burden  on  the  Sabbath  day,  Jer. 
xvii.  21,  22.  Nevertheless,  "on  the  Sabbath  day," 
and  while  under  this  law,  Christ  said  to  a  helpless 
paralytic,  "Arise,  take  up  thy  bed,  and  go  into  thine 
house,'"'  and  which  he  justified  on  the  principle  of 
showing  mercy.  Matt.  ix.  2 — 13.  But,  could  any 
inducement  to  the  exercise  of  mercy,  justify  a  viola- 
lation  of  the  moral  law  1  See  also  the  account  of  his 
curing  the  man  whose  right  hand  teas  loithered,  and 
that  of  his  curing  the  woman  bound  under  an  infir- 
mity eighteen  years,  each  on  a  Sabbath  day,  and 
notice  how  he  silenced  the  caviling  Pharisees.  Mark 
iii.  1 — 6  ;  and  Luke  xiii.  10 — 17.  Again  :  *  Jesus,' 
(with  his  disciples,)  "went  on  the  Sahiath  Day 
through  the  corn,"  that  is,  along  a  road  or  path  lea- 
ding through  a  field  of  barley,  "and  his  disciples 
were  an  hungred,  and  began  to  pluck  the  ears  of 
corn."  Luke  adds,  "rubbing  them  in  their  hands," 
all  which  partook  of  the  nature  of  labor.  "But  when 
the  Pharisees  saw  it,  they  said  unto  him,  Behold  thy 
disciples  do  that  which  is  not  lawful  to  do  upon  the 
Sabbath  Day.  But  he  said  unto  them,  (the  Pharisees,) 
Have  ye  not  read" — ye  who  profess  so  much  knowl- 
edge— "what  David  did,  when  he  was  an  hungred 
and  they  that  were  with  him  ;  how  he  entered  unto 
the  house  of  God"  (the  Tabernacle,  then  at  Nob,  the 
city  of  priests  ;  I  Sam.  xxi.  1 — 6,)  "and  did  eat  the 
shew-bread,  which"  according  to  Levit.  xxi  v.  9,  "was 
not  lawful  for  him  to  eat,  neither  for  them  that  were 
with  him,  but  only  for  the  priests  ?  Or  (giving  an- 
other example)  have  ye  not  read  in  the   law,  (Num. 


SABBATH    DISCUSSION".  41 

xxviii.  9 — 10,)  how  that  on  the  Sahbafh  Days  the 
priests  in  the  Temple,''  as  formerly  in  the  taberna- 
cle, "profane,''  in  a  manner  secularize,  "the  Sab- 
bath" by  killing,  flaying,  eviscerating  and  of- 
fering the  lambs,  even  two  extra  ones  on  that 
day,  "and  are  blameless,"  it  being  their  appropriate 
service,  though  by  a  law,  which,  being  given  sub- 
sequently to  the  fourth  commandment,  literally  con- 
travened, and,  in  that  instance,  intermitted  it  ? — 
Then,  aware  that  the  Pharisees  were  thinking,  and 
ready  to  say,  The  cases  are  not  parallel  ;  thy  disci- 
ples are  not  priests,  nor  in  the  temple  ;  they  are  com- 
mon men,  strolling  through  a  barley  field  :  aware,  I 
say,  that  they  were  secretly  making  these,  or  such 
like  objections,  Christ  replied  accordingly,  putting 
a  hut  upon  all  they  could  say  or  think — ^'But  I 
gay  unto  you.  That  in  this  (place,  though  afield,) 
is  One,"  meaning  himself,  "One  greater  than  the 
Temple," — One  by  whose  orders  the  temple,  as  well  as 
the  tabernacle,  was  built — One,  who,  ignorant  as 
they  were  of  him,  had  resided  hetiveen  the  Cheru- 
bim, both  in  the  tabernacle  and  in  the  temple — One 
who,  as  the  divine  Lawgiver,  had  instituted  both 
Sabbath  and  Priesthood  as  shadows  of  himself,  the 
substance,  and  which,  to  make  way  for  the  clear- 
er manifestation  of  his  own  character,  he  would 
shortly  abolish  ;  "for,"  adds  he,  "the  son  of  man 
(one  of  his  personal  titles  ;  seeDan.  vii.  13  ;  John 
iii.  13  ;  v.  27)  is  Lord  even  of  the  Sabbath-Day." 
Thus  acting  and  saying,  our  blessed  Lord  placed 
a  breach  of  the  Sabbath  on  a  par,  not  with  a 
breach  of  the  moral  law,  but  with  a  breach  of  the 
law  by  which  the  Levitical  priesthood  was  instituted 
and  privileged,  and  which  all  who  read  the  Bible 
must  know,  was  ceremonial  and  repealable.  Nay, 
he  shows  that  the  very  law  of   the  priesthood  re- 


42  SABBATH    DISCUSSION. 

quired  that  to  be  clone  on  the  Sabbath,  which  was 
forbidden  by  the  fourth  commandment  ;  and,  con- 
sequently, that  this  commandment  itself  could 
not  be  moral,  but  positive,  and  hence  subject  to  in- 
termission and  repeal.  Wherefore,  as  David  and  his 
men,  jin  eating  the  hallow^ed  bread,  to  prevent  star- 
vation, were  innocent^  and  the  priests,  in  doing  their 
sacrificial  work  on  the  Sabbath,  M'ere  blameless,  so 
the  disciples,  in  plucking  and  rubbing  the  ears  of 
corn  on  the  Sabbath,  to  allay  their  hunger,  were 
guiltless  ;  all  having  the  sanction  of  Him  who  is  the 
Anti-type  of  the  Levitical  priesthood,  and  Lord  even 
oftlieSahhathDay,  and  v/ho  delighteth  in  forbear- 
ance and  mercy.     Matt.  xii.  1 — 8. 

The  evidence,  indeed,  that  the  fourth  command- 
ment was,  in  its  nature,  'positive^  and  not  moral,  must 
constantly  run  parallel  with  the  evidence  that  the 
Sabbath,  as  thereby  enjoined,  was  peculiar  to  nation- 
al Israel  ;  and  of  this  there  can  be  no  authorized 
question.     For, 

1.  The  w^hole  decalogue,  and  therefore  the  fourth 
commandment,  was  delivered  only  to  that  people.  Ex- 
XX.  1,  2,  3. 

2.  "The  Sabbath  of  the  fourth  commandment,"  as 
much  as  the  sabbaths  of  annual  observances,  was  a  sign 
to  that  people  of  a  peculiar  relation  between  God  and 
them.  See  Ex.  xxxi.  13 — 17.  Now,  that  the  an- 
nual sabbaths,  if  they  had  been  common  to  the  world, 
could  not  have  been  a  sign  of  any  peculiar  relation 
between  God  and  Israel,  you  must  certainly  admit. 
But,  remember,  the  same  is  asserted  of  the  weekly 
Sabbath  given  to  that  people.  This  Sabbath  was  a 
sign  to  them  and  concerning  them,  in  a  twofold  ro- 
spect.  As  an  observance  peculiar  to  them,  it  was. 
primarily,  a  sign,  both  to  them  and  of  them,  that  they, 
rejecting  all  idols,  had  acknowledged  Jehovah,    the 


SABBATH    DISCUSSION.  4S 

Creator  of  Heaven  and  earth,  to  be  their  God.  As 
a  recognition  of  this,  God  required  them  to  observe 
the  Sabbath  :  "Ye  shall  keep  the  Sabbath  .  .  .  six 
days  may  work  be  done  but  in  the  seventh  is  the 
Sabbath  of  rest,  holy  to  the  Lord  .  .  .—wherefore 
the  children  of  Israel  shall  keep  the  Sabbath  ...  7/ 
is  a  SIGN  between  me  and  the  children  of  Israel  for- 
ever ;  for  in  six  days  the  Lord  made  heaven  and 
earth,  and  on  the  seventh  day  he  rested,  and  (speak- 
ing after  the  manner  of  men)  was  refreshed."'  Ex, 
xxxi.  14 — 17.  These  injunctions,  as  o^ppears  from 
the  chapter  referred  to,  were  given  in  connection  with 
those  directing  the  services  of  the  tabernacle  ;  which 
leads  to  the  supposition  that  they  were  given  in  a 
ceremonial  way.  Neverthertheless,  they  agreed  with, 
and  recognized  the  very  Sabb  ath  of  the  fourth  com- 
mandment, as  may  be  seen  both  in  the  promulgation 
of  the  decalogue,  Ex.  xx.  and  in  its  rehearsal,  Deut 
V.  And,  secondarily  their  having  this  Sabbath,  as 
an  institution  peculiar  to  them,  was  a  commemora- 
tive SIGN  to  them,  and  their  constant  obsei-^-ance  of 
it,  was  a  characteristic  sign  of  them,  that  they  grate- 
fully acknowledged  that  Jehovah,  the  Greater  ol 
Heaven  and  earth,  had  brought  them  out  of  bondage 
in  Egypt,  and  promised  them  rest  in  Canaan.  Ac- 
cordingly, in  the  rehersal  of  the  decalogue,  Deut.  v. 
not  only  is  the  whole,  as  in  Ex.  xx.  prefaced  with, 
*'I  AM  THE  Lord  thy  God,  who  brought  thee  out 
of  the  land  of  Egypt,  from  the  house  of  bondage  ;'' 
ver.  6  ;  but  the  observance  of  the  fourth  command 
ment,  is  moreover,  specially  enforced  by  this  con 
sideration  ;  "Keep  the  Sabbath  Day  to  sanctify  it> 
as  the  Lord  thy  God,''  at  the  giving  of  the  law  'com 
manded  thee.  Six  days  thou  shalt  (or  mayest)  labor 
and  do  all  thy  work  :  but  the  seventh  day  is  the  Sao 
bath  of  the  Lord  thy  God,'  that  which  he  (as  a  com 


44  SABBATH     DISCUSSION. 

rnemoration  of  his  own  rest  after  employing  six  days 
in  creative  work)  hath  commanded  them  to  keep  : 
''ill  it  thou  shalt  do  no  work/'  &c.  ''And  rememler 
that  thou  was  a  servant  in  the  land  of  Egypt,  and 
that  the  Lord  thy  God  brought  thee  out  thence,  &dc.  : 
Therefore,  the  Lord  thy  God  commandeth  thee  to 
keep  the  Sabbath  Day.''  ver.  12 — 15. 

3.  "The  Sabbath  of  the  fourth  commandment,'' 
like  each  of  the  other  sabbaths  peculiar  to  national 
Israel,  was  to  continue  only  during  the  Mosaic  dis- 
pensation— a  dispensation  based  upon  a  covenant  of 
peculiarity  ;  Ex.  xix.  5 — 8.  Levit.  xxiv.  8.  While, 
therefore,  this  dispensation  lasted,  the  Israelites, 
throughout  all  their  generations,  were  required  to 
observe  the  weekly,  as  well  as  the  annual  sabbaths, 
appertaining  to  it,  "for  a  perpetual  covenant.'.  Ex. 
xxxi.  16.  Comp.  ver.  13  \  also  Hosea  ii.  11,  and 
Col.  ii.  16,  17. 

4.  As  a  decisive  proof  that  "the  Sabbath  of  the 
fourth  commandment"  was  peculiar  to  national  Isra- 
el, none  but  Jews  were  liable  to  the  deadly  penalty 
of  violating  it.  Ex.  xxi.  14,  15.  Comp.  Neh.  xiii.  15 
— 22.  In  the  latter  passage,  it  is  true,  that  the 
Tyrians  are  represented  as  templers  of  the  Jews,  by 
offering  their  fish  for  sale  on  the  Sabbath  ;  yet  the 
Jews  only  were  called  to  account  for  the  breach  of 
Sabbath  ;  see  ver.  17.  Nor  is  there,  that  I  recol- 
lect, a  single  divine  charge  of  Sabbath-breaking  up- 
on sacred  record,  before  or  after  the  Mosaic  dispen- 
sation.     I  shall  only  add, 

'  5.  That  the  keeping  of  the  Sabbath  is  not  among 
the  "necessary  things,"  which  the  Holy  Ghost  in 
the  apostles  required  of  the  Gentiles  converted  to 
the  faith  of  the  Gospel.  Acts  xv.  28,  29.  And,  as 
it  was  not  required  of  them,  it  could  not  have 
been  required  of  Jews  converted  to  the  same  faith  ; 


SABBATH     DISCUSSION.  45 

for  under  the  Gospel,  believers  of  all  nations  are  *one 
in  Christ  Jesus.'  Gal.  iii.  28. 

Now,  from  these  revealed  facts,  the  fair  concIusioQ 
is  simply  this  : — While  the  moral  precepts  of  the  dec- 
alogue, exhibiting  an  infalliable  copy  of  the  law  of 
nature,  and  constituting  a  perpetual  standard  of  per- 
fect morality,  run  through  the  Scriptures  of  the  New 
Testament,  as  well  as  of  the  Old,  "the  Sabbath  of 
the  fourth  commandment"  never  has  been,  and  (with- 
out a  new  revelation  for  the  purpose)  never  can  be 
obligatory  on  any  but  Jews  and  those  prosel;^^ed  to 
Judaism. 

My  views  on  Gen.  ii.  2,  3,  I  must  reserve  for  a 
future  communication.  In  the  mean  time,  I  remain 
your  cordial  friend,  and  I  trust,  the  cordial  friend  of 
truth. 

WM.  PARKINSON. 


The  two  following  letters  were  sent  to  the  Editor 
of  American  Baptist  in  April  last,  they  were  designed 
as  a  reply  to  Eld.  P's  second  letter  ;  but  their  publica- 
tion was  delayed  until  he  had  concluded  his  first  se- 
ries of  letters  to  me,  prior  to  the  above  date.  Their 
dates  refer  to  the  time  of  their  publication.  W.  B.  M. 

LETTER  V. 


To  THE  Rev.   William  Parkinson. 

Octoher,  1835. 
Dear  Sir, — ^In  my  last,  I  stated  that  the  whole  dif- 
ference between  us  on  the  subject  of  the  Sabbath  turns 
upon  the  validity  of  the  Decalogue.  By  the  term  va- 
lidity, I  intended  that  the  several  precepts  of  which  the 
decalogue  is  composed,  remain  a  law  in  an  unmutila- 
ted  state,  binding  all  men  to  obedience  who  come  to  the 
knowledge  of  it  ;  and  that  the  fourth  precept  of  this 
code  which  relates  wholly  to  the  Sabbath,  is  sufficient 
to  determine  what  portion  of  time,  and  what  particu- 
lar day  of  the  week  should  be  observed  as  the  Sab- 
bath, under  the  present,  as  well  as  the  former  dispen- 
sation. But  you  are  not  to  understand  me  to  mean 
fay  the  use  of  this  term,  that  the  manner  in  which  the 
Sabbath  should  be  observed,  is  particularly  defined 
by  the  fourth  commandment  ;  for  this  could  not  be  a 


SABBATH     DISCUSSIOX. 


47 


dictate  of  any  law  designed  for  universal  application. 
It  is  sufficient  for  a  general  law  that  labor  was  prohib- 
ited, and  the  keeping  it  holy  enjoined  ;  but  the  man- 
ner of  keeping  the  Sabbath,  must,  to  a  considerable  ex- 
tent, be  unavoidably  under  the  control  of  circumstan- 
ces. The  object  of  the  precept  is  easily  understood 
by  every  one  who  comes  to  the  knowledge  of  it,  viz. — 
that  men  should  devote  their  undivided  attention  to 
the  acknowledgment  of  God's  glorious  Perfections, 
and  their  own  moral  and  religious  improvement. — 
The  precept,  therefore,  upon  your  view  of  the  subject, 
obliged  the  Jews,  and  upon  mine,  all  other  persons 
to  whom  it  should  be  made  known,  to  keep  the  Sab- 
bath in  the  best  manner  their  circumstances  would 
permit.  To  abstain  from  unnecessary  labor,  and  to 
engage  in  the  contemplation  of  the  perfection  and 
works  of  the  Deity,  were  duties  practicable  to  all  ; 
and  it  is  a  dictate  of  reason,  as  well  as  of  revelation, 
that  the  object  of  the  command  would  be  promoted  by 
socially  engaging  in  these  duties,  when  circumstances 
would '^  permit.  That  the  prohibitions  of  this  lav/, 
however  unqualifiedly  expressed,  were  designed  to 
be  understood  as  referring  to  labor  which  was  not 
necessary  to  the  comfort  and  happiness  of  mankind, 
is  evident  from  there  being  no  complaint  against  Isra- 
el for  the  performance  of  what  necessity  or  mercy 
demanded,  also  from  the  labors  allowed  in  the  temple 
on  the  Sabbath,  and  particularly  from  our  Lord's  own 
exposition  of  this  subject  in  Matt.  xii.  1 — 7,  which 
was  according  to  the  meaning  and  spirit  of  the  law. 
By  a  particular  statute,  Israel  was  required  to  have  a 
holy  convocation  upon  the  Sabbath.  Lev.  xxiii.  3 
But  this  law  would  not  apply  to  those  whose  circum- 
stances would  not  permit  them  to  assemble. 

If,  as  you  think,  the  Decalogue,  and  consequently 
the  fourth  commandment,  were  designed  only  for  jia- 


48 


SABBATH    DISCUSSION. 


tional  Israel,  the  consequence  would  be,  that  none  but 
that  people  were  obliged  to  keep  it.  But,  Sir,  you  ad- 
mit that  whatever  there  was  in  this  written  law  that 
regarded  moral  duty,  has  always  been  and  must  con- 
tinue to  be  binding  upon  all  the  posterity  of  Adam. — 
Allowing,  then,  that  the  Decalogue,  as  such,  was 
given  only  to  national  Israel — still,  as  this  law  is  by 
your  admission,  a  verbal  copy  of  the  law  of  nature, 
by  which  I  understand  you  to  mean  the  moral  Jaw, 
which  must  ever  bind  the  whole  posterity  of  Adam  : 
I  see  not  how  the  Jew  is  affected  differently  from  the 
Gentile.  If  it  be  a  verbal  cojjy,  it  must  be  a  perfect 
one  ;  and  had  the  Gentiles  in  general,  or  the  Church 
in  particular,  received  a  verbal  copy  of  the  law  of 
nature,  or  the  moral  law  from  a  Divine  Source,  it 
must  have  been  substantially  what  the  Decalogue  is. 
I  cannot  see  with  you  that  there  is  evident  proof  in  the 
preface  to  the  Decalogue,  that  those  laws  were  de- 
signed for  none  but  Israel,  for  whatever  there  was  of  a 
moral  nature  in  these  laws  was  binding  upon  the  whole 
world.  I  know  of  none  who  pretend  that  the  law, 
when  given  at  Sinai,  was  addressed  or  delivered  to 
any  people  but  Israel  ;  but  when  it  is  considered  that 
they  had  these  livelij  oracZe^  committed  unto  them,  to  be 
finally  transmitted  to  the  Church,  [Acts  vii.  38]  and 
that  they  possessed  the  only  correct  doctrine  and  or- 
dinances of  religion  then  given  to  the  world — it  is 
evidently  the  duty  of  all  the  world  to  adopt  that  reli- 

fion — to  take  hold  of  the  covenant  of  the  Lord,  and  to 
eep  the  Sabbath  from  polluting  it,  as  they  were  re- 
quired to  do  in  Isaiah  Ivi.  1 — 7.  From  which  it  is 
put  beyond  dispute  that  these  sacred  oracles  were  de- 
signed not  for  the  use  of  the  Jews  only,  but  that  the 
laiv  should  go  forth  fr  0711  Zion  and  the  word  of  the  Lord 
from  Jerusalem.  Isa.  ii.  3.  And  the  Temple  of  the 
Lord  wa3  designed  for  a  house  of  prayer  for  all  peo- 


SABBATH    DISCUSSION.  49 

pie.  Isa.  Ivi.  7.  In  like  manner,  the  doctrine  and 
ordinances  of  the  Gospel  were  delivered  only  to  the 
apostles  and  primitive  believers  who  were  Jews,  con- 
verted to  Christianity  ;  and  their  views  for  a  time, 
were  very  similar,  respecting  the  Gospel,  to  those 
you  express  concerning  the  law.  They  supposed 
the  Jews  alone  were  to  be  benefited  by  it  ;  but  we 
know  that  the  Gospel  was  destined  to  go  forth  from 
Zion  for  the  salvation  of  the  Gentiles. 

You  further  admit,  "that  Christ  and  his  apostles 
recognized  the  decalogue  in  regard  to  its  moral  in- 
junctions and  prohibitions. ''  But,  my  dear  Sir,  the 
Scriptures  know  of  no  distinction  between  moral 
and  iwsitive  injunctions  and  prohibitions.  If  a  duty 
be  enjoined,  or  an  act  forbidden,  we  are  not  warranted 
in  hesitating  as  to  our  obedience,  till  we  can  ascer- 
tain whether  it  be  of  a  moral  or  'positive  character. 

In  all  cases  where  God  condescends  to  command,  it 
is  His  authority  that  binds  us  to  obedience,  whether 
the  duty  so  commanded  could  have  been  ascer- 
tained by  the  dictates  of  reason,  and  light  of  nature  or 
not.  In  the  Saviour's  recognition  of  the  law  in  his 
sermon  on  the  Mount,  He  not  only  confirmed  the  Dec- 
alogue as  a  whole,  but  every  precept  of  it  in  particu- 
lar. He  says  [Matt.  v.  18]  in  the  most  emphatic 
manner,  "Till  Heaven  and  Earth  pass,  one  jot  or 
one  tittle  shall  in  no  wise  pass  from  the  law  till  all  be 
fulfilled.  "  And  to  show  that  the  phrase  "  till  all  be 
fulfilled, ''  did  not  refer  to  His  own  perfect  obedience 
to  this  law,  but  to  its  perpetually  binding  influence  up- 
on his  disciples.  He  continues,  [v.  19]  "Whosoever 
therefore  shall  break  one  of  these  least  command- 
ments, and  teach  men  so,  he  shall  be  called  the  least 
in  the  kingdom  of  Heaven, ''  i.  e.  the  Church  of 
Christ.  "  But  whosoever  shall  do  and  teach  them, 
the  same  shall  be  called  great  in  the  kingdom  of  Heav- 


50  SABBATH      DISCUSSION. 

en."  Christ  has  here  not  only  '•''recognized  the  mor- 
alUij  of  the  Decalogue,  as  a  standard  of  perfection, 
as  yoLi  admit,  but  every  precept,  every  letter  and  ev- 
ery part  of  a  letter  of  which  this  as  a  written  law  is 
composed.  The  distinction  between  moral  and  posi- 
tive in  this  case  cannot  be  insisted  upon  to  any  profit 
in  understanding  the  meaning  of  this  text.  It  serves 
to  bevvilder  rather  than  to  enlighten  ;  the  plain 
meaning  of  this  passage,  as  well  as  its  context  is, 
that  Christ  here  declares  that  every  one  of  the  ten 
Commandments  shall  be  perpetuated  as  a  law  to  the 
Church,  and  this  is,  with  but  a  few  exceptions,  the 
avowed  sentiment  of  the  whole  Christian  world,  be 
their  practice  with  respect  to  the  Sabbath,  what  it 
may.  Christ  did,  as  you  justly  remark,  recognize 
this  law  as  a  standard  of  perfection,  "and  exhibited 
his  claims  to  cordial  and  j^ractica I  conformity.  '"'  Do 
you  ask  then,  "where  do  we  find  any  mention  made 
of  the  Sabbath  or  any  reference,  or  even  allusion,  to 
the  fourth  commandment  ?  "  You  have,  in  this  sec- 
tion of  Christ's  sermon,  more  than  a  reference  to 
this  commandment.  It  is  here  emphatically  en- 
joined under  the  penalty  of  his  displeasure  ;  for  all 
those  precepts  are  both  jointly  and  severally  declared 
to  be  binding  upon  the  Church.  In  many  other  pla- 
ces the  laws  of  the  Decaloguo  aro  referred  to  as  a  rule 
of  duty  without  any  exceptions.  See  James  i  2.^-; 
Rom.  iii.  31  ;  I  John  iii,  4 — 22  ;  v.  2 — 5  ;ii.  4  ;  II 
John  vi.  ;  Rev.  xxii.  14.  "  Blessed  are  they  that  do 
his  comm.andments,  that  they  may  have  right  to  the 
tree  of  life.  "  In  all  these  references,  and  many  more 
might  be  cited,  the  laws  of  the  Decalogue  were  refer- 
red to  ;  for  there  was  no  other  code  recognized  by  the 
Christian  Church,  and  they  are  all  mentioned  as  a 
rule  of  moral  and  religious  duty.  Here  is  no  partio- 
ular  precept  enforced;   or  any  one  excepted  ;    the 


SABBATH     DISCUSSION.  51 

whole  must  be  intended,  or  none  of  them.  To  the 
mind  of  all  who  had  read  or  heard  those  command- 
ments, and  particularly  to  that  of  the  Christians  of  Ju- 
dea,  the  fourth  commandment,  as  well  as  the  other 
nine,  must  be  invariably  presented  on  every  reference 
or  allusion  to  the  Decalogue.  AVhat  else  could  be  un- 
derstood ?  Your  objections  therefore  to  the  fourth 
commandment,  on  account  of  its  not  being  particu- 
larly named,  appear  to  me  not  to  be  well  founded. 

From  the  apparent  silence  of  the  New  Testament 
respecting  the  fourth  commandment,  you  infer  that 
it  is  not  a  moral  precept ;  and  in  all  your  admis- 
sions of  the  Decalogue  as  a  law  to  the  Church,  you 
have  very  cautiously  admitted  the  morality  of  the 
law  only.  And  since  you  ground  your  objections  to 
the  fourth  commandment  upon  its  not  being  a  moral 
precept,  it  is  proper  to  inquire  into  the  justness  of 
these  objections.  If  the  institution  of  the  Sabbath, 
as  well  as  the  appointment  of  the  seventh  day,  were 
exclusively  of  a  jjositive  nature,  our  obligation  to 
obey  it,  is  not  less  when  it  is  commanded,  than  it 
would  be  were  it  purely  moral.  I  freely  admit  that 
the  appointment  of  the  seventh  day  is  decidedly  of  a 
positive  nature  ;  but  the  institution  of  the  Sabbath, 
so  far  as  it  can  be  perceived  aside  from  the  particu- 
lar day  which  is  declared  to  be  the  Sabbath,  is  decid- 
ly  of  a  moral  nature.  Not  because  it  must  necessa- 
rily be  discovered  by  a  dictate  of  reason,  and  the  light 
of  nature,  but  because  it  provides  for  the  performance 
of  the  worship  of  God,  which  is  admitted  on  all  hands 
to  be  a  moral  duty.  The  venerable  President  Dwight 
observes,  [sermon  185]  "The  distinction  between 
moral  and  iwsitive  commands,  has  been  less  clearly 
made  by  moral  writers  than  most  other  distinctions.^^ 
He  says  the  law  of  the  Sabbath  is  entirely  of  a  moral 
nature,  as  to  the  whole  end  at  which  it  aims,  so  far 


52  SABBATH    DISCUSSION. 

as  man  is  concerned — that  "  it  makes  no  difference 
here,  whether  we  could  have  known  without  infor- 
mation from  God,  that  one  day  in  seven  would  be 
tlie  best  time,  and  furnish  the  best  manner  of  perform- 
ing these  [religious]  things  or  not.  It  is  sufficient 
that  we  now  know  them. 

The  institution  of  the  Sabbath,  then,  must  be  con- 
sidered as  possessing  all  the  sacredness  of  a  moral 
institution  ;  and  whatever  this  is,  such  is  the  fourth 
commandment.  If  the  one  is  moral  so  is  the  other. 
If  the  institution  of  the  Sabbath  provided  for,  and 
were  necessary  to  the  commemoration  of  the  wisdom, 
power,  and  goodness  of  God — if  it  were  designed  to 
give  opportunity  for  innocent  beings  to  increase  in 
holiness,  and  for  the  guilty  to  acquire  it  ;  which  are 
duties  necessary  to  every  man  in  every  age  and  in 
every  place — if  this  were  the  nature  and  design 
of  the  institution,  which  you  have  in  your  Sum- 
mary admitted,  you  will  allow  that  the  institution 
is,  so  far  as  it  constitutes  a  season  for  holy  rest, 
a  moral  institution.  To  me  it  appears  to  be  both 
moral  and  'positive — moral,  as  to  the  apppointment 
of  a  season  for  rest  and  devotion,  and  positive  as 
to  the  appointment  of  the  seventh  and  last  day  of  the 
week  for  this  purpose.  But  instituting  the  Sabbath, 
consisted  in  the  appointment  of  the  seventh  and  last 
day  of  the  week  ;  to  annul  the  latter  would  be  to  ab- 
rogate the  institution,  as  the  reasons  assigned  for  the 
institution  could  apply  to  no  other  day  than  the  sev- 
enth. God  could  do  this  if  he  pleased,  and  if  he  see 
fit,  appoint  another  day,  and  assign  other  reasons 
for  it  ;  but  it  would  be  entirely  another  institution. 

But  although  the  appointment  of  the  seventh  day 
be  admitted  to  be  a  -positive  lavr,  it  must  also  be  ad- 
mitted, that  after  it  is  ascertained  to  be  an  appoint- 
ment of  God,  we  are  under  moral  obligation  to  regard  . 


SABBATH     DISCUSSION.  53 

it,  being  a  dictate  of  reason,  that  all  God's  revealed 
will  should  be  obeyed.  Wilfully  to  violate  such  pos- 
itive laws,  is  therefore  an  immorality  no  less  than 
when  a  duty  purely  moral  is  the  object  of  neglect. 

I  know  it  is  a  common  argument  in  favor  of  the 
morality  of  the  fourth  commandment,  as  you  observe, 
that  God  placed  it  in  the  Decalogue  among  those  pre- 
cepts which  are  unquestionably  moral.  And  I  also 
know  that  the  circumstance  that  this,  with  the  whole 
Decalogue  was  given  to  national  Israel,  and  that  they 
were  bound  to  observe  it  during  their  national  exis- 
tence, and  that  it  was  mentioned  in  connection  with 
annual  sabbaths,  does  neither  invalidate  this  argu- 
ment nor  render  it  futile,  as  you  suppose,  for  your 
argument  would  be  equally  valid  if  urged  against  any 
of  these  precepts,  as  it  is  against  this.  God  very  well 
knew,  when  he  associated  the  Sabbath  law  with  the 
other  moral  precepts  and  wrote  on  the  tables  of 
stone,  that  its  fir^t,  most  simple  and  unsophisticated 
influence  on  the  minds  of  his  people  would  be  to  im- 
press them  with  a  sense  of  its  sacredness  ;  audit  was 
not  thus  associated  without  design  ;  and  this  design 
could  not  have  been  to  mislead  them  ;  he  therefore 
intended  that  their  minds  should  thus  be  impressed 
respecting  the  sacredness  and  perpetuity  of  this  pre- 
cept— to  undervalue  it  therefore  is  to  counteract  the 
design  of  God.  1  admit  that  the  annual  and  month- 
ly sabbaths  were  positive  and  ceremonial,  and  that 
they  belonged  to  that  class  of  ordinances  which  are 
abolished,  but  the  occasional  mention  of  the  Sabbath 
in  connection  with  these  in  the  places  you  refer  to, 
are  no  evidence  that  it  was  of  the  same  class  ;  since  it 
is  sufficiently  distinguished  from  them  elsewhere.  See 
Ex.  XX,  8 — 11.  We  also  find  in  the  context  of  one  of 
your  references  [Ex.  xxiii.  24]  the  prohibition  of  the 
second  commandment,  "  Thou  shalt  not  bow  to  their 

D 


54 


SABBATH     DISCUSSION. 


gods,  nor  serve  them/''  You  would  certainly  think 
that  a  man  must  be  stubbornly  bent  to  his  purpose, 
who  would  plead  this  latter  association  in  justifica- 
tion of  image  worship. 

As  to  these  acts  of  Christ  and  his  disciples  on  the 
i:?abbath,  which  you  have  noticed  as  a  violation  of  the 
fourth  commandment,  and  infer  from  thence  that  it 
was  not  a  morale  but  a  'positive  law  ;  I  would  ob- 
serve, that  you  might  as  vv^ell  say  that  the  sixth  com- 
mandment [Ex.  XX.  13]  "  Thou  shalt  not  killj  '^ 
is  not  a  moral  law,  because  Abraham  was  comman- 
ded to  siay  Isaac  ;  and  Joshua  and  Saul  were  requir- 
ed to  destroy  the  heathen.  Aside  from  a  divine  war- 
rant, these  acts  would  have  been  grossly  immoral  ; 
but  directed  as  they  were  they  violated  no  moral  law. 
Christ  also  had  a  perfect  right  to  suspend  any  law, 
whether  moral  or  positive  ;  which  ho  asserts  as  far 
as  the  Sabbath  is  concerned,  [in  Mark  ii.  27,] 
'•The  son  of  man  is  Lord  also  of  the  Sabbath. ''  And 
we  are  not  to  understand  his  vindication  of  him- 
self and  disciples  as  a  concession  that  the  charge  was 
just  which  the  Jews  urged  against  them.  I  have  al- 
ready shown  that  these  acts  so  much  complained  of, 
were  in  strict  conformity  with  the  spirit  and  design  of 
the  fourth  commandment.  You  say  "  that  Christ 
never  committed  nor  sanctioned  any  violation  of  the 
moral  law,  is  certain,  for  he  did  no  sin.  But  I  can- 
not discover  how  the  case  is  helped  by  considering 
these  acts  a  violation  of  positive  law  only  ;  since  we 
have  seen  that  it  is  immoral  to  violate  even  a  posi- 
tive law,  Vv  hen  it  is  made  known.  It  is  a  dangerous 
sentiment  to  support,  and  one  fraught  v/itli  incalcu- 
lable evil,  that  the  violation  of  God's  postiive  insti- 
tutions is  not  sinful.  And  it  appears  to  me  that  it 
would  be  but  little  short  of  blasphemy  to  say  that 
Christ  violated   any  divine   law,    whether  moral   or 


SABBATH    DISCUSSION.  55 

positive.  In  doing  so,  we  should  be  taking  the  side 
of  his  accusers,  who  originally  alleged  this  against 
him.  Indeed  the  sentiment  that  Christ  did  not  fulfil 
all  righteousness,  is  too  monstrous  to  deserve  a  seri- 
ous refutation. 

Your  arguments  to  show  that  the  Sabbath  of  the 
fourth  commanment  was  peculiar  to  National  Israel 
must  be  the  subject  of  a  future  communication. 

Before  I  close  this  article,  I  think  it  is  a  duty  I  owe 
both  to   myself  and  you,  to  notice  a  remark  in  your 
first  communication,   which  I  deemed  a  severe  and 
uncalled  for  stricture  upon  my  references  to  Doctors 
Brown   and   Lightfoot.     I  had  observed    that   these 
writers  admitted  that  the  Pentecost  subsequent  to  the 
crucifixion  of  Christ  fell   on  the  seventh   day.     This 
remark  I  made  from  recollection  of  what  Dr.  Brown 
had  said  upon  the  subject.     You  promptly  denied  it, 
and  found  it  difficult  to  excuse  me;  and  this  only  bv 
supposmg  that  I  had  copied  some  wicked  or  malicious 
scribbler  of  a  note   in  Burnside  on  the  Sabbath  — 
VVhen  I  replied  to  this,  I  had  not  the   work  by  me  • 
but  I  will  now  furnish  you  with  an  extract  from  which 
my  remarks  were  made.     Dr.  Brown's  words  are  as 
there  stated.    [Art.   Vol.  2.  p.   446]   "  When  treating 
ot  the  passover  we  noticed  that  the  paschal  lamb  was 
eaten   on  Thursday ,   that   Friday,    when   our   Lord 
was  crucified  was  the  first  day  of  the  passover  week  • 
and  that  on  Saturday  the  first  fruits  were  offered  ud' 
Consequently,    the    fiftieth  day   after,    or    Pentecosl 
would  tall  on   Saturday  ;  after  the   sunset  of  which 
or  on  the  beginning  of  the  Christian  Sabbath,  the  Ho- 
ly Ghost  probably  descended.'-     A  note  at  the  close 
of  this  sentence  says,   "  See  a  minute  calender  of  the 
time  between  our  Saviour's  death  and  the  day  of  Pen 
tecost  in  Lightfoot's  commentary  in  Acts  chap.  2  " 
I  can  understand  this  reference  to  Lightfoot  only    as 
d2 


;?(*  SABBATH    DISCUSSION. 

Hiade  for  the  corroboration  of  the  statement  he  had 
just  nmde.  To  show  that  I  have  not  mistaken  the 
meaning  of  Dr.  Brown,  I  will  refer  to  p.  444.  He 
there  says,  "It  is  not  said  at  what  particular  hour 
the  spirit  descended  ;  but  it  is  probable  that  it  was  af- 
ter the  conclusion  of  the  evening  service  at  the  tem- 
j>]e,  and  when  they  had  gone  to  their  apartments  to 
reflect  on  the  duties  in  which  they  have  been  engag- 
ed, and  the  hopes  they  were  led  to  entertain  ;  for  the 
W(nds  in  Acts  ii.  1.  which  we  render,  "When  the  day 
of  Pentecost  was  fully  come.''  literally  signify,  "af- 
ter the  conclusion  of  the  day  of  Pentecost."  I  think 
you  will  now  excuse  me  on  the  grounds  of  my  cor- 
rectness. 

I  remain  vours  respectfully, 

W.  B.  MAXSON. 


LETTER  VI. 


To  THE  Rev.   William  Parkinson. 

October,  1835. 
Dear  Sir, — In  accordance  with   tlie  proposition  in 
my  last,  I  will  now  notice    you    arguments   to   show 
tliat  the  Sabbath  of  the  fourth  commandment  was  pe- 
culiar to  national  Israel. 

1.  Your  first  argument  is,  ^'that  the  whole  Deca- 
logue, and  therefore  the  fourth  commandment,  was 
delivered  only  to  that  people.''  As  I  have  fully  an- 
swered and  refuted  this  argument  in  my  last,  I  will 
only  add  that  if  it  proves  any  thing  to  the  point,  it 
proves  altogether  too  much  ;  for  according  to  \-oar 
argument  the  whole  of  the  Decalogue  was  peculiar  to 
the  Jews,  which  we  know  was  not  the  case. 

2.  You  say  "the  Sabbath  of  the  fourth  command- 
ment as  much  as  the  sabbaths  of  annual  observance, 
was  a  sign  between  God  and  them — that  the  annual 
sabbaths  had  they  been  common  to  the  world  could 
not  have  been  a  sign  of  any  peculiar  relation  between 
God  and  Israel,  and  that  the  same  is  asserted  of  the 
weekly  Sabbath  given  to  that  people.*''  I  admit  this 
upon  the  supposition,  that  all  the  world  paid  the  same 
regard  to  their  institutions  that  the  people  of  Israel 
did.  But  it  should  be  remembered  that  the  world  had 
become  idolatrous,  and  paid  no  regard   to    any   ordi- 


58  SABBATH    DISCUSSION. 

nance  of  true  religion.  It  is  therefore  easy  to  see 
how  the  observance  of  the  Sabbath,  and  every  other 
visible  act  of  obedience  to  God's  appointment,  would 
be  significant  of  a  peculiar  relation  between  God  ami 
them.  It  was,  however,  their  obedience  to  these  in- 
stitutions which  signified  this  relationship,  rather  than 
the  institutions  in  the  abstract.  Of  this  there  is  di- 
rect proof  in  the  case  of  the  ten  tribes  ;  who,  when 
they  cast  oft"  the  ordinances  of  God,  had  no  longer  a 
sign  of  this  relation  to  him.  The  consequence  was 
— the  relationship  was  destroyed.  Hence  it  was  their 
obedience  which  made  these  ordinances  a  sign  be- 
tween God  and  them.  The  Scriptures  do  not  limit 
these  ordinances  to  the  descendants  of  Jacob, and  it  is 
certain  they  were  adapted  to  that  dispensation,  and 
comprised  the  only  acceptable  and  true  worship  of 
God.*  Now  if  the  Gentiles  were  under  an  obliga- 
tion to  worship  God  ;  they  were  bound  to  perform  a 
true  worship,  and  to  adopt  that  form  of  Godliness 
which  he  had  ordained  and  revealed.  Of  this  we  are 
assured  in  Isa.  56,  where  every  inducement  is  offered 
to  the  Gentiles  "to  love  the  name  of  the  Lord — keep 
the  Sabbath — and  take  hold  of  his  covenant."  To 
whatever  extent  the  Gentiles  forsook  their  idols  and 
turned  to  God  ;  the  Sabbath  and  other  ordinances  of 

♦Circumcision  should  unque-tionab.y  be  excej  ted  from  among  the 
ordinances  of  religion  in  that  dispensation  ;  as  this  lite  pertained 
exclusively  to  ihe  ])Osterity  of  Abrah  .m  through  Isaac  and  Jacob 
and  was  tlie  seal  of  a  covenant  into  which  God  had  entered  with 
those  patriarch?,  to  give  unto  their  national  decendants  the  land  of 
Canaan  for  a  possession  consequently  none  were  obligated  to  take 
upon  them  the  seal  (.f  this  covenant,  unless  they  have  ideniified 
tliemselves  with  that  nation  in  order  to  enjoy  with  them  tlieir  tem- 
poral inheritance.  Although  circumcision  in  the  flesh  was  consid- 
ered symbolical  of  that  of  the  heart, Col.  ii.ll,  Rom.  ii.  29yetthePd 
appears  to  be  nothing  in  it  typical  of  the  Gospel  dispensation.  To 
the  Gentiles  both  before  and  since  the  advent  of  Christ,  circumcis- 
ion has  been  nothing  and  uncircuracision  nothing,  yet  to  be  n^ 
creatures  and  to  keep  the  commandments  of  God  tvere  always  their 
duty  Gal.  6,  15  I  Cor.  7;  19. 


SABBATH     DISCUSSION.  59 

divine  worship  then  became  a  sign  between  him  and 
them,  by  which  they  knew  he  was  the  Lord  that  sanc- 
tified them.  These  ordinances  were  adapted  to  their 
circumstances  so  far  as  piety  was  concerned,  al- 
though they  vrcre  not  identified  wqth  national  Israel. 
Hence  it  is  evident  they  were  not  designed  to  be  re- 
stricted to  that  nation.  Respecting  the  weekly  Sab- 
bath, a  still  greater  diinculty  attends  your  view  of 
the  subject.  The  fourth  commandment  recognizes 
the  Seventh  Day  which  was  originally  appointed  for 
all  mankind.  You  certainly  will  admit  that  the  Sab- 
bath which  was  made  for  man,  was  adapted  to  his  cir- 
cumstances ;  and  you  will  also  admit  that  the  Sab- 
bath which  God  made  common  to  the  whole  world,  he 
would  not  make  peculiar  to  one  nation  ;  or  in  your 
own  words  "could  not  have  been  a  sign  of  any  pecu- 
liar relation  between  God  and  Israel,''  otherwise, 
than  as  it  became  so  by  their  obedience  to  it.  If  it 
were  peculiar  to  that  people  ;  it  must  have  been  the 
fourth  commandment  that  made  it  so.  But  wliat  is  there 
in  this  precept  of  a  national  or  local  character  ?  It  an^ 
nounced  no  new  institution — i^embraced  no  new  pro- 
hibitions, and  enjoined  no  new  duties.  He  called  up- 
on Israel  to  rememher  an  institution  as  old  as  crea- 
tion, and  to  perform  duties  which  the  whole  world 
had  ever  been  bound  to  perform.  Such  is  the  na 
ture  of  the  fourth  commandment,  and  the  Sabbath  it 
enjoins.  If  then  in  a  subsequent  rehearsal  of  this  pre- 
cept, the  people  of  Israel  were  reminded  of  their  for^ 
mer  slavery,  and  God's  kindness  in  delivering  them 
from  bondage  ;  it  was  to  stimulate  them  to  obedience, 
and  especially  to  awaken  their  sympathies  in  behalf 
of  their  children,  servants  and  cattle,  that  they  should 
not  violate  the  Sabbath  law  by  refusing  them  the  rest 
to  which  they  were  entitled.  In  citing  Deut.  v:  15 
I  notice  you  have  emphasized  the  word   "therefore," 


60  SABBATH      DISCUSSION. 

thereby  placing  upon  it,  what  appears  to  me  an  im- 
proper stress,  1  deem  it  quite  immaterial  which  way 
we  add  to,  or  take  from  the  word  of  God,  whether  by 
mutilating  the  text,  or  by  giving  it  an  improper  sig- 
nification. It  is  disingenious  to  do  it  any  way.  You 
would  have  me  believe  that  the  deliverance  of  Israel 
from  slavery  was  the  sole,  or  principal  reason  for 
their  being  commanded  to  keep  the  Sabbath  ;  and  if 
this  were  the  only  place  where  the  duty  is  enjoined,  I 
should  be  warranted  in  believing  it.  But  in  Ex.  xx  ; 
8 — 11,  a  far  different,  and  much  higher  reason  is  as- 
signed, to  wit,  that  God  rested  the  seventh  daij  from 
all  his  work.  Had  he  relinquished  this  reason  for 
the  command,  and  substituted  the  former,  the  institu- 
tion would  have  become  a  different  one  from  that  re- 
ferred to  in  the  fourth  commandment. 

3.  Again  you  say,  ''the  Sabbath  of  the  fourth  com- 
mandment, like  each  of  the  other  sabbaths  peculiar 
to  national  Israel,  was  to  continue  only  during  the 
Mosaic  dispensation,''  and  refer  me  to  Ex.  xix  :  5 — 
8,  Levit.  xxiv  :  8  and  Ex.  xxxi  :  16,  neither  of  these 
texts  in  the  least  intimate  the  discontinuance  of  the 
weekly  Sabbath  ;  nor  do  they  even  allude  to  such  a 
thing.  The  passage  in  Hoseaii  :  11,  which  you  have 
also  quoted  as  proof  that  the  weekly  Sabbath  should 
cease,  relates  to  the  captivity  of  Judah,  and  not  to  the 
Gospel  dispensation.  It  contains  a  threat,  that  by 
way  of  judgment  for  their  idolatry,  the  public  cele- 
bration of  their  feasts  and  holy  days,  which  could 
not  be  observed  by  them  while  in  captivity  ;  should 
be  suspended  ;  but  the  final  abolition  of  their  ritual 
observances  is  declared  to  be  a  blessing — the  remo- 
val of  an  oppressive  burden.  Col.  ii :  14  whereas,  the 
weekl}'-  Sabbath  has  been  uniformly  pronounced  a 
blessing — a  relief  of  a  burden,  and  could  have  been 
remembered,  and  was  probably  kept  according  to  the 


SABBATH     DISCUSSION.  61 

fourth  commandment  even  in  Babylon.  We  have  no 
evidence  that  Col  ii  :  15,  16,  which  you  also  have 
cited,  has  allusion  to  the  weekly  vSabbath.  It  is  gen- 
erally admitted  that  when  sabbath  in  the  plural,  oc- 
curs in  the  original  of  the  New  Testament  (in  con- 
nection with  the  Jewish  ritual,)  the  word  generally 
refers  to  the  annual  and  monthly  observance,  and  not 
to  the  weekly  Sabbath.  Of  this  I  suppose  you  are 
apprized  ;  and  also  that  this  word  in  Col.  ii  :  16  is 
in  the  original,  sabbaths,  and  that  the  annexed  'days' 
is  altogether  of  human  devise,  -consequently  neither 
this,  nor  the  other  texts  you  have  quoted  afford  any 
evidence  that  the  weekly  Sabbath  should  discontinue 
with  the  Mosaic  dispensation. 

4.  You  consider  it  a  decisive  proof  that  the  Sab- 
bath of  the  fourth  commandment  was  peculiar  to  na- 
tional Israel,  that  none  but  Jews  were  liable  to  the 
deadly  penalty  of  violating  it.  Now  one  decisive 
proof  is  sufficient  to  settle  the  question.  But  let  us 
look  at  it.  The  first  objection  it  meets  with  in  my 
mind  is,  that  if  it  proves  any  thing  in  favor  of  your 
proposition,  it  proves  too  much  ;  for  you  might  say 
the  same  of  nearly,  if  not  quite  all  the  moral  duties 
mentioned  in  the  Decalogue,  which  you  admit,  were 
universally  binding  upon  man.  Another  difficulty 
is,  it  appears  to  be  at  variance  with  facts.  The 
Gentiles  who  should  be  guilty  of  Sabbath-breaking, 
or  any  other  immoral  act  prohibited  in  the  Deca- 
logue, within  the  precincts  of  national  Israel,  were 
as  liable  to  this  deadly  penalty  as  the  Jews.  See 
Liv.  xxvi.  22,  Numb.  ix.  14.  There  beingi  no  di- 
rect divine  charge  brought  against  the  Gentiles,  of 
neglecting  the  Sabbath,  is  no  evidence  that  it  was  not 
their  duty  to  keep  it.  We  need  not  doubt  but  this  sin 
was  included  in  the  general  wickedness  for  which  God 
inflicted  a  penalty  much  more  severe  than  he  author- 


62  SABBATH    DISCUSSION. 

ized  the  Jews  to  inflict.  See  Geii  vi :  5  and  7  :  23 
II  Pet.  ii  :  5.  Jude  verse  7  and  15.  In  the  case 
recorded  in  Neh.  xiii  :  15 — 22.  The  Jews  were  ex- 
postulated with  for  their  disregard  to  the  Sabbath  ; 
but  the  Tyrians  without  the  walls  were  threatened 
with  arrest.  This  decisive  proof,  therefore,  seems 
not  much  to  the    point. 

5.  You  seem  to  think  that  because  Sabbath  keep- 
ing was  not  enumerated  among  the  necessary  things. 
Acts  XV  :  28,  29,  it  was  not  required  of  Christian  con- 
verts. But  you  surely  will  not  insist  upon  it,  that 
all  that  was  necessary  for  the  disciples  to  observe 
was  mentioned  in  this  place.  It  is  true  that  neither 
the  keeping  of  the  Sabbath,  nor  of  the  first  day  of 
the  week  is  noticed  in  the  apostolic  letter  sent  to  the 
disciples  at  Antioch.  For  the  omission  of  the  former 
a  very  good  reason  is  assigned  in  verse  21  of  this 
chapter,  where  it  is  said,  they  had  the  writings  of 
Moses  read  to  them  every  Sabbath,  but  we  should 
naturally  expect  to  find  some  mention  of  the  latter, 
had  it  been  considered  a  necessary  thing  ;  since,  if  it 
were  then  observed,  it  must  have  been  a  new  thing, 
and  the  new  disciples  could  not  learn  it  from  any  oth- 
er written  oracle. 

From  a  careful  investigation  of  your  arguments 
and  Scripture  references  relative  to  this  point,  I  must 
frankly  say,  that  they  cannot  fairly  lead  to  the  con- 
clusion you  suppose  they  do. — Not  one  single  text, 
nor  all  you  have  cited  put  together,  inform  ns,  that 
the  Sahhath  of  the  fourth  commandment  does  not  ex- 
tend to  the  Gentiles,  either  before  or  since  the  com- 
ing of  Christ  ;  or  that  it  was  designed  to  be  restrict- 
ed to  the  Jewish  nations ;  or  that  it  should  continue 
no  longer  than  that  dispensation  lasted.  To  those 
who  assert  these  things  it  belongs  to  prove  them  by 
sucli  Scripture  testimony  as  will  be  convincing  to  an 


SABBATH      DISCUSSION. 


63 


unbiased  mind.  And  you  Sir,  would  smile  at  a  Fsd- 
dobaptist  opponent,  who  would  attempt  to  establish  his 
theory. by  references  to  the  Scriptures  so  inconclusive 
and  unsatisfying. 

Having  noticed  what  I  think  worthy  of  remark  in 
this  letter,  I  now  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  that  of 
April  10th.  In  perusing  this  I  am  happy  in  finding, 
in  the  main,  our  views  so  nearly  to  coincide.  In  the 
exhibition  of  your  opinion  concerning  the  Sabbatic  in- 
stitution, I  cordially  concur,  still  there  are  several 
points  which  it  will  devolve  on  you  to  establish   viz  : 

1.  That  there  is  a  substantial  difference  between 
the  Sabbath  originally  instituted  and  the  Sabbath  of 
the  fourth  commandment.  2.  That  the  original  in- 
stitution authoritatively  recognizes  the  observation  of 
the  firsi  day  of  the  week  instead  of  the  seventh.  Or, 
3.  That  it  is  abolished  and  that  by  a  new  divine  in- 
stitution, the  observation  of  the  first  day  is  establish- 
ed. When  you  do  this,  I  will  yield  to  you  the  yalm 
of  consistency  and  evangelical  correctness  on  this 
subject.  Those  points,  however,  should  be  proved  by 
such  Scripture  testimony  as  is  calculated  to  produce 
conviction  ;  for  one  plain,  preceptive  reference  will 
be  of  more  value  than  a  thousand  that  are  vague  and 
indeterminate.  I  think  it  of  but  little  use  to  multiply 
citations  of  this  class. 

Although  1  have  expressed  my  concurrence  gener- 
ally, in  your  last  letter,  still,  there  are  some  things 
which  I  wish  to  notice.  The  first  is  in  the  first  clause, 
you  there  say,  "If  according  to  my  last  communica- 
tion to  you,  the  Sabbath  enjoined  in  the  fourth  com- 
mandment was  peculiar  to  national  Israel  ;  it  must  be 
obvious  that  if  it  has  ever  been  the  duty  of  the  Gen- 
tiles to  observe  the  seventh  day  Sabbath,  it  must 
have  been  so  by  the  record  in  Gen.  ii ;  23,'^  &c. — 
This  conclusion  I  admit  to  be  just  ;  but  with  mo  the 


64  SABBATH    DISCUSSION. 

difficulty  is — you  have  not  established  this  point,  of    ' 
which,  I  think  you  will  be  conscious  when  you  have    ' 
perused  my  reply.      And  I  hope  you  will  not  proceed 
upon   the  presumption   that  you   have  satisfactorily 
proved  it. 

After  giving  it  as  your  opinion  that  God  instituted    : 
the  Sabbath  immediately  after  the  work  of  Creation    ' 
was  completed,  and  that  he  made  it  the  duty  of  man-    ! 
kind  to  regard  it,  you  say,    "The  patriarchal  Sab-    j 
bath  was  not  (as  was  the  subsequent  Mosaic  Sabbath)    ' 
instituted  by  commandment,  but  by  example  "  &c. —   . 
There  was   probably  a    difference  in  the   manner  in 
which  God  at  first  promulgated  the  institution  of  the 
Sabbath,  and  that  in  which  he  gave  the  Sabbatic  law    ] 
at  Sinai.     But  I  think  no  person  is  warranted  in  say-   i 
ing  that  our  first  parents,  and  their  immediate  descen- 
dants, were  not  commanded  to  keep  the  vSabbath  ;  or    i 
that  it  was  not  enforced  by  a  penalty       In  a  state  of   i 
innocence,  there  may   have  been   no  occasion  for   a  • 
penalty  to  secure  obedience  to  this  duty  ;  but  this  could 
not  have  been  the  case  with  them  after  their  fall,  nor 
with  their  posterity.     Be   this  as  it  may,  their  duty.  \ 
would  not  have  been  the   less  absolute.     It  matters  ' 
not  how  the  good  pleasure  of  God  is  made   known  to   ; 
his  creatures,  provided  it  be  expressed  with  sufficient  I 
clearness  to  be  understood.      God's   v/ill  is  his  law,    j 
and  to  publish  his  will  is  nothing  less  than  promulga-  \ 
ting  a  law,  which  law  is  as  imperative  as  if  given  un-  \ 
der  the  severest  penalties.     Although  there  may  have  | 
been  no  expressed  penalty  annexed  to  this  law,  there 
was  one  implied  and  understood,  and  if  it   were  wil- 
fully  violated  there   must  have   been  an   exposure  to 
the  implied  penalty.     That  this  was  not  stoning  I  ad- 
mit, but  the  inflictions  of  punishment  from  the  hand  of 
God  is  not  less  severe,  which  a  multitude  of  instances   | 
recorded  in  the   Scriptures   clearly  evince.     It  is  a    ' 


SABBATH     DISCUSSION.  65 

sentiment  which  has  extensively  obtained,  and  I  think 
you  will  concur  in  it,  that  an  example  is  equivalent  to 
a  command.  Whether  this  is,  or  is  not  correct,  those 
who  plead  it  in  favor  of  apostolic  example,  cannot, 
with  a  good  grace,  deny  it,  wr.en  it  is  applied  to  the 
divine  example  in  the  institution  of  the  Sabbath. — 
Mr.  Burnside  says  (p.  34.)  ''In  my  opinion  there 
never  was,  nor  can  be  a  law  more  plainly  enacted  in 
regard  to  its  nature,  and  the  time  when  it  was  to  take 
effect,  than  the  divine  institution  recorded  Gen.  ii  : 
2,  3.''  In  this  light  I  view  the  subject,  and  therefore, 
cannot  agree  with  you,  that  the  patriarchal  Sabbath 
was  obseiwed  solely  as  "a  merciful  privilege  and  not 
a^s  an  imperious  duty.^'*  If  the  neglect  of  the  patri- 
archal Sabbath,  as  you  have  said  "evinces  much  in- 
gratitude and  impiety,''''  it  must  have  been  an  impie- 
ty in  itself,  and  it  was  the  imperious  duty  of  every 
man  to  avoid  it.  I  thought  proper  to  remark  thus  far 
upon  this  letter  lest  my  silence  should  be  construed 
as  an  entire  concurrence.  I  shall  read  patiently  and 
cheerfully  whatever  you  still  have  to  communicate  on 
tiiis  subject.     In  the  meantime  I  remain 

Yours  respectfully. 

W.  B.  MAXSON. 

*This  sentiment  is  most  pernicious  in  its  influence,  viewing  the 
observance  of  the  Sabbath,  not  an  imperious  duty  ;  but  merely  aa 
a  privilege  is  the  very  root  of  all  the  iSabbath  desecration  in  our 
land;  and  to  maintain  as  you  have  on  fh's  point,that  the  obligation 
due  to  patriarchal  Sabbath  involved  not  an  imperious  dut'/  ;  but  a 
priviledge.  only ,  and  that  the  obligation  to  the  weekly  day  of  rest  un- 
der the  Gospel  is  precisely  the  same,  is  to  contract  all  the  pious  and 
benevolent  efforts  of  the  present  age  to  obtain  for  it  a  proper  respect. 
We  may  preach,  and  pray,  and  write ,  and  legislate  in  relation  to 
Sabbath  profanation,  but  the  evil  will  ct  ntinue  till  its  observance  i* 
undf  rilood  to  be  an  imperious  duty^  and  oaorally  binding  upon  tba 
whole  community.  W.li.M. 


LETTER  VII. 


To  THE  Rev.  Mr.  Maxson. 

April,  1835. 

Dear  Sir, — If,  according  to  my  last  communication 
to  you,  the  Sabbath,  as  enjoined  by  the  fourth  com- 
mandment, was  peculiar  to  national  Israel,  it  must  be 
obvious,  that  if  it  has  ever  been  the  duty  of  the  Gen- 
tiles to  observe  a  seventh  day  Sabbath,  it  must  have 
been  made  so,  by  the  record  in  Gen.  ii.  2,  3,  which 
reads  thus  :  *'And  on  the  seventh  day  God  ended  his 
work  which  he  had  made  ;  and  he  rested  on  the  sev- 
enth day  from  all  his  work  which  he  had  m.ade. — 
And  God  blessed  the  seventh  day,  and  sanctified  it  : 
because  that  in  it  he  had  rested  from  all  his  work 
which  God  created  and  made." 

Upon  the  face  of  this  record,  there  is  a  verbal  in- 
congruity, which,  aside  from  the  object  of  the  cita- 
tion, I  shall  specify  ;  showing  also  how  it  may  bo 
removed.  The  words  "on  the  seventh  day  God  en- 
ded his  work,'' plainly  imply  that  he  did  part  of  his 
work  on  that  day;  which  certainly  cannot  be  meant  ;  it 
being  contrary  to  the  current  testimony  of  Scripture, 
and  even  to  this  text  itself,  wherein  it  is  afterwards 
twice  asserted  that  "he  rested  on  the  seventh  day 
from  all  his  work  which  he  had  made ;"  having 
finished  it  on  the    sixth  day.       Now,   admitting    th® 


SABBATH     DISCUSSION.  67 

text  as  it  reads  in  our  standard  Hebrew  copy  to  be 
genuine,  the  verbal  incongruity  may  be  removed,  by 
simply  rendering  the  clause  in  question,  '•^'Before  the 
seventh  day,  &c.  ;"  and  both  Noldius  and  Taylor, 
under  the  prefix  heth,  mention  lefore  among  their 
notations  of  its  meaning.  This,  it  is  true,  is  not  a 
frequent  meaning  of  it  ;  yet,  in  some  places,  our 
translation  would  be  improved  by  its  adoption  ;  as, 
for  instance,  in  1  Sam  vi.  7  ;  where  before  the  cart, 
would  be  better  than  "to  the  ca  rt  ;'^  and  in  Zech.  vi. 
2,3;  where  before  the  first  chariot,  and  bffore  t\iQ 
second  chariot,  vv^ould  certainly  be  better  than  "z'w 
the  first  chariot,'"  and  ^Hn  the  second  chariot."'  In- 
deed, I  can  see  no  reason  wli}-  the  words  in  question 
may  not  as  well  be  translated  thus  :  "An  on  the  sev- 
enth day  God  had  ended  his  work,"'  &c.  So  they 
are  rendered  by  Levi.  See  Ling.  Sac.  under  (*) 
Calah.  It  is  possible,  however,  that  through  the  in- 
advertency of  some  early  transcriber,  the  word  (f) 
hashshebigni  ^/ie  5erc/?M,  as  it  is  now  found  in  our 
Hebrew  Standard,  became  substituted  for  (t)  hashs- 
liishi  the  sixth  ;  which  being  restored  makes  the  true 
sense  ;  for  then  the  words  will  read  as  follows  :  "And 
on  the  sixth  day  God  ended  his  work and  he  res- 
ted on  the  Seventh  Day,  &c.'''  So  no  doubt,  the 
Hebrew  text  was  found  when  the  Greek  translation 
was  made,  at  last  in  the  manuscript  used  for  that 
purpose  ;  for  the  Septuagint  has  brri  yiy^spa  r'/]  sxtt) 
in  or  on  the  sixth  day  ;  and,  following  this,  the  Syriae 
and  Samaritan  versions  have  the  same.  That  such 
a  substitution  of  one  word  for  another  might  occur, 
is  more  probable  than  common  readers  suppose.  It 
is  vv  ell  known  to  the  learned,  that  anciently,  in  He- 
brew as  well  as  in  Greek  and  Latin,    numbers   were 

(*)    (t)    (]^)    Hebrew  char  cters  are  here  omitted. 


68  SABBATH    DISCUSSION. 

usually  noted  only  by  numeral  letters.  Thus  vau 
stood  for  six,  and  %ain  for  seven  ;  which  letters  be- 
ing very  similar,  a  transcriber  might  easily  mistake 
zain  for  vau  ;  and  which  being  written  out,  would 
produce  hashshebigni,  the  seventh,  instead  of  hashishi 
the  sixth.  Either  of  these  methods  suggested  for  re- 
moving from  the  text,  the  verbal  inconsistency  no- 
ticed, is  satisfactory  to  mc.  The  last  was  relied  on, 
and  ably  sustained  by  Dr.  Adam  Clarke. 

Now,  according  to  promise,  I  proceed  to  give  you 
my  views  of  the  record  above  cited,  in  relation  to  the 
Sabbath.  That  this  record  contains  no  express  com- 
mand of  God,  that  Adam  or  his  posterity  should  ob- 
serve the  seventh  day  as  a  Sabbath,  must  be  obvious 
to  all.  Nevertheless,  the  words  "God  blessed  the 
Seventh  Day  and  sanctified  it,"  can,  to  my  appre- 
hension, mean  nothing  less  than  that  He  pronoun- 
ced it  sacred,  and  set  it  apart  as  such,  to  be  obser- 
ved by  man  as  a  day  of  rest  and  devotion.  So 
much  in  substance,  is  generally  admitted.  The 
learned,  however,  both  among  Jews  and  Christians, 
have  constantly  been  divided  in  o})inion,  whether  ac- 
cording to  the  record  before  us,  God  instituted  the 
seventh  day  Sabbath  immediately,  or  only  proleptical" 
jAf ;  that  is  whether  by  sanctifying  the  day  of  his 
rest,  He  set  it  apart,  to  be  observed,  as  a  day  of  rest 
and  devotion,  by  the  first  human  pair,  their  children, 
&c.  or  merely  that  He  thereby  signified  a  purpose  to 
institute,  as  a  memorial  of  his  own  rest  from  creative 
operations,  a  seventh  day  Sabbath,  weekly  recurring 
after  six  days  labor,  to  be  observed  by  a  peculiar 
people  to  wiiom  He  would  make  it  known:  and  which 
peo})le,  as  eventually  demonstrated,  were  the  Jews  ; 
it  being  unto  them  that  He  made  known  his  holy  Sab- 
hath,  with  other  institutes,  by  the  hand  of  Moses. 
Neh.  ix.  14. 


SABBATH    DISCUSSION.  09 

Each  side  has  its  difficulties.  Upon  the  supposition 
that  God  appointed  the  seventh  day  of  the  week  to 
be  sanctified  by  the  first  human  pair,  and  by  their 
immediate  and  successive  offspring,  it  is  for  instance, 
difficult  to  account  for  the  fact,  that  no  subsequent 
mention  is  made  of  that  day,  as  a  Sabbath,  nor  either 
of  its  observance,  or  its  profanation,  as  such,  till 
after  the  Exodus  of  the  children  of  Israel  from  Egypt, 
a  lapse  of  about  two  thousand  five  hundred  years. 
Did  the  posterity  of  Adam  during  all  that  time, 
(though  otherwise  so  excessively  irreligious)  observe 
the  due  sanctification  of  the  Sabbath,  so  universally, 
constantly,  and  perfectly,  that  not  even  one  among 
them  ever  needed  either  an  excitement  to  duty,  or  a 
reproof  for  the  neglect  of  it  1  This  none  can  believe. 
Yet,  among  the  difficulties  on  the  other  side,  an  in- 
stance occurs  to  every  thoughtful  mind,  which  in  my 
humble  opinion  is  equally  great,  and  even  less  sus- 
ceptible of  management :  for,  considering  how  much 
the  due  sanctification  of  a  weekly  Sabbath  would 
have  tended  to  promote  the  knowledge  and  acknowl- 
edgment of  God  upon  earth,  and  especially  during 
tliose  ages  and  generations,  that  were  not  illuminated 
by  the  inspired  Scriptures  ; — and  considering  withal, 
that  a  weekly  day  of  rest  was  as  requisite  then,  as  it 
is  found  to  be  71020,  to  the  health  and  well-being  of 
both  man  and  beast, — considering  these  things,  I  say, 
it  seems  to  me  wholly  irreconcilable  with  the  wisdom 
and  goodness  of  the  Creator,  that  He  should  have 
left  mankind  for  twenty-Jive  hundred  years,  without 
an  institution  so  variously  important  andj  useful. 
Each  opinion  has  been  sustained  by  men  confessedly 
learned  and  religiously  conscientious.  Among 
Christian  writers,  on  the  list  of  those  who  have  advo- 
cated the  opinion  that  no  Sabbath,  otherwise  than 
proleptically,  was  divinely  instituted  until  at  the  giv- 


TO  SABBATH    DISCUSSIOIS'. 

ingof  the  manna,  (Ex.  xvi.)  we  find  Limberouch, 
Le  Clerk,  and  Gill  ;  and  on  the  list  of  those  who 
have  advocated  the  opinion  that  God  instituted  a  week- 
ly Sabbath  coeval  with  the  creation,  we  find  Light- 
foot  and  Patrick,  Keixnicott,  Henry  and  Clarke. 

As,  in  regard  to  the  date  of  the  Sabbatic  institutions 
I  concur  with  the  latter  opinion,  it  becomes  my  duty 
to  show,  at  least,  how  I  meet  the  chief  argument  ur- 
ged by  Dr.  Gill  and  others  in  support  of  the  contrary 
opinion  ;  which  argument  is  the  long  silence  of  Scrip- 
ture respecting  a  Sabbath,  and  which  I  have  already 
placed  in  its  most  advantageous  light.  This  argu- 
ment, then,  however  popular  and  strong,  I  cannot 
admit  to  be  conclusive.  A  Sabbath,  notAvithstanding 
the  fact  on  which  this  argument  depends,  might  hav^ 
been  instituted,  and  partially  or  occasionally  obser- 
ved ;  nay,  the  neglect  and  profanation  of  it,  howev^ 
er  prevalent,  might,  though  not  specified,  be  inclu- 
ded in  the  general  wickedness^  which,  among  the 
antediluvians,  God  saio  was  great  in  the  earth.  Gen. 
vi.  .5, 

That  the  public  worship  of  God  was  observed  in 
the  days  of  ^eth,  seems  highly  probable  from  Gen. 
iv.  26  ;  Then  began  men  to  call  upon  the  name  of  the 
LoRd — that  is  publicly  ;  for  privately  it  must  have 
been  done  before  ;  as,  for  instance  by  Adam,  and 
Eve,  and  Abel.  But,  as  they  observed  public  wor- 
ship, they  must  have  assembled  for  that  purpose  ;  and 
if  so,  why  not  on  the  day  that  God  blessed  and  sanc- 
tified? The  words,  it  is  true,  maybe  rendered,  "Then 
began  men  to  call  in  the  name  of  the  Lord,"'  that  is 
to  pray  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Christ  ;  those  who 
believed  in  him  being  accustomed  to  convene  on  the 
appointed  day  of  rest — which  they  observed  in  token 
of  the  rest  they  enjoyed  in  him,  and  as  a  pledge  of 
ihat  rest  which  they  l:opcd  to  enjoy  with    him  ;  or. 


SABBATH    DISCUSSION.  71 

"Then  began  men  to  call  themselves  by  the  name  of 
the  Lord  ;■"  true  believers  in  the  promised  seed, 
choosing  thus  to  distinguish  themselves  from  others. 
The  same,  too,  may  be  inferred  from  Job.  i.  6. 
There  2i'as  a  day  when  the  sons  of  God  came  to  pre- 
sent themselves  before  the  Lord  ;  that  is,  in  acts  of 
public  worship.  Many  learned  men,  I  know,  have 
understood  "the  sons  of  God,"'  in  this  place,  to  mean 
the  holy  angels,  who,  as  they  think,  are  so  called  in 
chapter  xxxviii.  7.  But  I  can  see  no  sufficient  rea- 
son why,  in  both  places,  "the  sons  of  God"  should 
not  be  understood  to  mean  the  saints,  distinguished, 
in  the  latter  place,  from  the  angels,  as  meant  by  "the 
morning  stars  ;"  and,  in  the  former  place,  from  the 
mere  "children  of  men,''  as  in  Gen.  vi.  2.  ^i  i\{q 
And,  understanding  "the  sons  of  God''  X%y  presen- 
saints,  the  coming  of  the  day  on.i^^'y'yery  well  boun- 
ded themselves  hefore  ^Ae  J^-n  of  a  day  on  which  they 
derstood  of  the  wQrtl^fgjiy  t^  n^eet  ;  and,  if  so,  what 
were  acpj^-jy  ^Q  hg^ye  been  thus  observed  by  them, 
as  the  day  which  "God  had  blessed  and  sanctified," 
pronounced  sacred  and  set  apart  for  that  purpose  ? 
In  the  instance  before  us  it  is  true,  the  meeting  held 
on  the  day  in  question,  is  mentioned  chiefly  for  the 
sake  of  what  follows  :  to  wit,  the  remarkable  collo- 
cution  which,  on  that  occasion,  the  Lord  condesden- 
ded  to  hold  with  Satan  ;  and  which  being  recoraea, 
is  variously  useful,  especially  to  the  Church  ;  it  serves 
to  show,  that  Satan  may  be  expected  to  leave  no 
means  untried,  to  disturb  the  devotions  of  God's 
ehildren,  in  public  as  well  as  in  private — nay,  that,  in 
some  instances,  as  in  the  case  of  Job,  he  may,  by 
divine  sufferance,  employ,  not  only  human  agents, 
but  even  natural  elements  and  bodily  diseases,  to 
distress  and  afflict  the  saints  ;  also,  that  none  but 
e2 


7^  SABBATH     DISCUSSION. 

Jehovah  can  effectually  answer  and  foil  him,  or  even- 
tually overrule  his  machinations  and  instruments, 
for  the  good  of  those  assailed.  See  Job  xlii.  10 — 17, 
Zech.  iii.  1 — 4,  Rom.  xvi.  20,  Rev.  xii.  10.  Now, 
that  Job  lived  before  the  Mosaic  dispensation,  and 
therefore  in  patriarchal  times,  seems  evident  from 
the  facts,  that  neither  he  nor  his  friends,  in  all  their 
long  dispute  about  God  and  religion — nor  Elihu, 
while  laboring  to  correct  their  mistakes — nor  even 
God  himself,  while  addressing  the  parties,  made  any 
reference  to  the  Decalogue,  or  noticed  any  species  of 
idolatry,  but  that  of  worshipping  the  sun,  moon  and 
stars. 

^  To  proceed.  Even  during  the  flood  there  is  a  hint 
in  the^aW:d  of  the  disputed  usage  ;  for  Noah,  while 
seventh  day.  '^tf'gstly  distinguished  a  return  of  the 
the  calculation  of  tini^SjO.  And  it  is  certain  that 
the  ante-Mosaic  partriarchs.  "^Sb.  was  in  use  among 
comp.  Judges  xiv.  7.  '"  xxix.  27,  and 

If,  indeed,  the  mere  silence  of  Scripture  respectx.. 
a  Sabbath  during  patriarchal  times,  prove  that  no  Sal> 
bath  had  then  been  instituted,  it  may,  in  like  manner 
be  proved  that  no  weekly  Sabbath  was  observed  or 
known,  from  the  time  of  Moses  to  the  time  of  David 
near  four  hundred  years ;  for,  little  as  it  has  been 
noticed,  after  the  rehersal  of  the  decalogue,  Deut.  v. 
no  mention  of  such  Sabbath  is  to  be  found  on  sacred 
record  ;  till  in  11  King  iv.  23.  Yet  none,  I  presume, 
believing  the  Biblc;  ever  doubted  that  the  obligation 
of  the  Jews  to  observe  'Hhe  Sabbath  of  the  fourth  com- 
mandment" remained,  during  all  that  time,  undimin- 
ished, or  supposed  that  the  observance  of  ii  was  wholly 
neglected  by  them.  Besides,  in  the  latter  place  re- 
ferred to,  the  Sahhath  is  mentioned  in  a  manner, 
which  plainly  implies  that  it    was   then  known  and 


SABBATH    DISCUSSION.  73 

observed  ;  it  being  a  day  on  which  devout  persons 
%vere  accustomed  to  resort  to  tiie  prophets  for  reli- 
gious instruction.  But,  if  the  Mosaic  Sabbath  re- 
mained obHgatory  on  the  Jews,  and  was  probably 
observed  by  them,  though  not  mentioned  in  any  part 
of  the  sacred  history  between  the  book  of  Deuterono- 
my and  that  of  Second  Kings,  why  might  not  the  pa- 
triarchal Sabbath  have  been  instituted  from  the  be- 
ginning, and  have  been  observed  by  the  godly, 
though  not  mentioned  in  the  book  of  Genesis  ? 

The  patriarchal  Sabbath, iiowever,  was  not  (as  was 
the  subsequent  Mosaic  Sabbath)  instituted  by  cmn- 
mandment  ;  but  on  this  wise  : — God  having  employed 
six  days  in  creative  operations,  and  having  rested 
therefrom  on  the  seventh,  did  thereon,  by  example, 
teach  the  first  human  pair  and  their  immediate  and 
successive  offspring,  that,  having  spent  six  days  in 
requisite  labor,  they  should  observe  the  seventh  day, 
in  its  weekly  return,  as  a  day  of  rest  and  devotion  : 
wherefore  "God  blessed  the  seventh  day  and  sancti- 
fied it  ;'"  that  is,  pronounced  it  sacred  to  himself, 
and  thereby  signified  his  will  that  man  should  ob- 
serve it  as  such.  Nor  was  the  observance  of  the 
patriarchal  Sabbath,  like  the  observance  of  "the  Sab- 
bath of  the  fourth  commandment,"'  enforced  by  the 
terror  of  temporal  penalty.  Such  penalty,  indeed, 
would  have  been  incompatible  with  the  patriarchal 
state  of  society  ;  there  being  then  no  appropriate 
tribunal,  civil  or  ecclesiastical,  to  take  cognizance 
of  such  offense,  or  to  inflict  such  penalty  ;  as  we 
know  there  was  under  the  Mosaic  dispensation. 
See  Num.  xv.  32-36.  Comp.  Ex.  xxxi.  14,  15.  xxxv. 
2,  3.  The  observances,  in  fact,  of  the  patriarchal 
Sabbath,  was  rather  suggested  than  demanded  ;  and 
was  designed  of  God,  as  an  authorized  intermission 
o[  toil,  to  all  his  laboring  creatures,  both  the   human 


t4  SABBATH     DISCUSSION. 

and  those  inferior  ;  and  especially,  that  mankmd 
might  have  a  weekly  memorial  of  the  creation,  with 
leisure,  to  contemplate  the  works,  and  to  adore  the 
perfections  of  the  great  Creator. 

Thus  understanding  the  institution  of  the  patri- 
archal Sabbath,  we  meet  the  less  difficulty  in  ac- 
counting for  the  silence  of  Scripture  respecting  its 
observance.  For,  as  it  was  not  given  by  express 
commandment,  nor  enforced  by  any  penal  sanction, 
it  was  observed,  not  as  an  imperious  duty,  but  as  a 
merciful  privilege.  And  though  the  neglect  of^it 
evinced  much  ingratitude  and  impiety,  and  though 
such  neglect  was  no  doubt,  for  a  w^hile,  deemed  per- 
nicious and  disreputable  ;  yet,  when  the  aboundings 
of  gross  iniquity  had,  as  may  well  be  supposed,  re- 
duced the  secularization  of  the  Sacred  Day,  to  a  com- 
paratively inconsiderable  fault,  this  fault"  ceased  to 
be  regarded  as  reproachful  in  society.  Hence  the 
Sabbath  came  to  be  observed  only  by  those  who,  un- 
der gracious  influences,  took  delight  in  contempla- 
ting and  worshiping  God — those  who,  by  stud^dng 
the  book  of  nature,  (the  only  book  then  extant,)  en- 
deavored to  "seek  the  Lord,  if  haply  they  might J'eel 
after  and  find  him  ;''  their  search  being  without  the 
aids  of  a  written  revelation,  vouchsafed  to  subsequent 
ages  and  generations.  See  Acts  xvii.  27.  Rom. 
i.  19,  20.  Comp.  Psal.  civ.  24.  Thus  instituted, 
and  thus  observed,  the  patriarchal  Sabbath,  in  its 
weekly  returns,  made  little  change  on  the  face  of  so- 
ciety, and  occasioned  no  public  events,  requiring  his- 
torical notice.  Besides,  Moses  wrote  the  history  of 
those  times,  not  as  an  eye-witness  of  their  events, 
but  long  afterwards,  and  as  he  was  "  moved  by  the 
Holy  Ghost  ;"  and,  as  it  was  his  duty  to  inculcate 
the  observance  of  the  Sabbath,  as  given  to  national 
Israel,  God  might  not  choose  to  instruct  him  to  mako 


SABBATH     DISCISSION.  'O 

^iiiy  mention  of  the  primitive  Sabbath  assigned 
to  the  patriarchs,  lest  the  Jews  should  murmur  at 
the  rigor  and  penal  sanctions  of  the  legal  Sabbath 
given  to  them. 

Here  I  must  again  stop.  And,  having  said  so  lit- 
tle in  this  piece,  regarding  any  matter  about  which 
we  differ,  I  hope  you  will  feel  the  better  prepared 
to  read,  with  patience,  what  I  have  yet  to  commu- 
nicate. 

I  remain  yours  in  truth  and  love, 

"       WM.  PARKINSON. 


Our  readers  have  doubtless  expected  that  Elder 
Parkinson  would  ere  this  have  finished  his  defense  of 
the  Christian  Sabbath.  He  has  resumed  the  topic, 
and  will  continue  it  without  being  confined  particular- 
ly to  Elder  Maxson's  propositions. — Ed.  American 
Baptist. 

LETTER    VIIL 


To  THE  Rev.  Mr.  Maxson. 

June,  1835. 

Dear  Sir, — As  my  object  in  these  letters  is  not  to 
dispute  with  you,  (nor  indeed  with  any  person,  or 
sect)  but  to  lay  my  views  of  the  Sabbatic  institution 
before  the  public,  1  find  it  necessary,  in  some  way^ 
to  dispose  of  two  questions,  which,  though  not  direct- 
ly involving  the  matter  of  difference  hetween  us,  are 
constantly  recurring  in  relation  to  the  important  sub- 
ject before  us. 

Of  these  questions,  the  first  is.  Did  tlie  institution  of 
a  weekly  Sabbath,  either  primitive  or  Mosaical,  re- 
quire the  santifcation  of  the  seventh  day  in  its  week- 
ly return  from  the  creation-week,  or  merely  the  sancti- 
fication  of  the  seventh  day  after  any  six  day^s  labor  f 
Those  who  advocate  the  latter  side  of  this  question, 
yery  plausibly  contend  that,  considering  the  sphere- 


SABBATH     DISCUSSION.  77 

idal  form  of  the  earth,  now  admitted  by  all  enlightened 
nations,  it  is  impossible  for  all  the  inhabitants  of  this 
globe,  governed  by  any  common  rule,  whether  the 
beginning  of  darkness,  or  of  light,  or  the  arrival  of 
midnight,  or  of  noon,  to  observe,  as  a  Sabbath,  the 
same  absolute  time.  Granted  : — For  1.  The  occur- 
rence of  darkness,  &c.  in  regard  to  absolute  time, 
must  vary  in  different  degrees  of  longitude,  east  or 
west  of  the  meridian.  2.  Antipodes,  those  who  livo 
in  parallels  of  latitude  equally  distant  from  the  equa- 
tor, north  and  south,  have,  in  respect  of  absolute  time, 
opposite  phenomena  ;  for,  though  they  have  nearly 
the  same  degree  of  heat  and  cold,  and  the  same 
length  of  night  and  day,  they  have  them,  respective- 
ly, at  contrary  times  ;  those  of  one  hemisphere  hav- 
ing midnight,  when  those  of  the  other  have  noon  ; 
and  those  of  the  one  having  the  longest  day,  when 
those  of  the  other  have  the  shortest.  And — 3.  In 
the  polar  regions,  both  north  and  south,  darkness 
or  light,  in  turn,  prevails  near  six  months. 

These  are  facts  which,  consistently  with  a  correct 
knowledge  of  astronomy  and  geography,  cannot  be 
denied  ;  and,  formerly,  they  inclined  me  to  favor 
the  opinion  they  are  adduced  to  sustain  ;  as  may  bo 
seen  in  my  "  Treatise  on  the  Public  Ministry  of 
the  Word,  ''  &c.  p.  51.  On  further  reflection, 
however,  I  became  convinced,  that  the  arguments 
thence  derived  are  fallacious — that  the  original  insti- 
tution of  the  Sabbath  required  the  sanctification  of  the 
Seventh  Day  in  its  weekly  return  from  the  creation, 
and  therefore,  that  the  facts  above  stated,  being  all 
perfectly  known  to  the  Institutor,  cannot  be  inconsis- 
tent with  the  institution,  so  understood.  The  truth  of 
my  opinion  must,  I  think,  appear  from  the  following 
considerations. 

1.  The  works  of  creation  being  finished   on  tho 


78  SABBATH     DISCUSSION. 

sixth  day,  the  earth  must  have  had  the  same  form 
and  the  same  relations  to  the  celestial  bodies,  when 
God  blessed  and  sanctified  the  day  of  his  rest,  that 
it  has  now  ,  and,  therefore,  its  first  diurnal  revolu- 
tion on  its  axis,  and  which  was  that  by  which  it  pro- 
duced the  first  Seventh  Day,  must  have  been  the  same 
that  it  was  destined  to  repeat  m  every  twenty-four 
hours  of  future  time.  Consequently,  if  the  earth 
had  been  as  extensively  inhabited  then  as  it  is  now^ 
it  would  have  exhibited  the  same  natural  phenomena  to 
the  inhabitants  of  any  given  place,  by  its  first  diur- 
nal revolution,  that  it  exhibits  to  the  inhabitants  of  the 
same  place,  by  its  diurnal  revolution  noiv  ;  that  is, 
evening,  midnight,  morning  and  noon,  would  have 
arrived  at  every  place  then,  in  the  same  relative 
time  in  which  they  arrive  at  every  place  now.  The 
daj/,  recollect,  was  sanctified,  that  is,  set  apart  for 
the  observance  of  mankind  wherever  they  might  be  lo- 
cated ;  and  though,  by  reason  of  the  facts  stated,  it 
would  reach  some  a  little  earlier  or  later  than  others, 
it  would  be  still  the  same  day  to  all  ;  it  being  to  each 
community  a  specified  day,  in  weekly  return,  at  the 
place  of  their  residence.     And, 

2.  As  to  the  difference  in  regard  to  the  absolute 
time  of  the  sacred  Lay,  that  would  necessarily  occur 
in  different  parts  of  the  earth,  they  are  implied  and 
provided  for  in  the  very  record  of  the  institution  ; 
for,  though  it  is  said,  "  The  evening  and  the  morn- 
ing were  the  first — second — third — -fourth — fifth — 
sixth  day  ;"  (Gen.  i.  .5,  8,  13,  19,  23,  31,)  yet  no 
such  exact  limits  are  assigned  to  the  seventh  day. — 
See  Gen.  ii.  2,  3.  The  evenings  the  first  part  of 
the  darkness,  I  understood  to  denote  the  night  ;  and 
the  7norning,  the  first  part  of  the  light,  I  understood  to 
denote  what  we  call  the  artificial  day  ;  the  first  part, 
in  reference  to  each,  being  put  for  the  whole  ;    and 


SABBATH     DISCUSSION.  79 

the  two,  whether  equally  or  unequally  divided,  ma- 
king an  entire  natural  day  of  twenty-four  hours  ; 
counting  from  evening  to  evening.  Hence,  too,  it 
must  be  evident  that  one  half,  at  least,  of  any  day, 
as  exhibited  in  the  garden  of  Eden,  must  be  included 
in  the  same  day,  as  exhibited  any  where  else,  east  or 
west  of  the  meridian — or  (within  the  tropics  )  north 
or  south  of  the  Equator.  These  remarks,  recollect,^ 
provide  for  the  difference  between  the  greatest  ex- 
tremes ;  which,  at  no  two  places,  can  exceed  twelve 
hours.  But,  as  to  the  inhabitants  of  intermediate 
countries  and  Islands,  the  differences  of  their  abso- 
lute time  must  be  comparatively  small — nay,  between 
some  of  them,  quite  inconsiderable.  Nor  has  it  ev- 
er been  impossible,  hov\^ever  troublesome,  for  even 
adventurers  into  the  polar  regions,  to  observe  the 
Sabbatic  institution,  if  so  disposed  ;  for,  knowing  the 
day  of  the  week  on  whch  they  enter  such  region, 
and  having  a  faithful  chronometer,  clock  or  watch, 
they  might  count  off  twenty-four  hourss  for  each  re- 
maining day  of  the  six  allowed  for  labor,  and  observe 
the  seventh  twenty-four  hours  as  the  Sabbath  ;  and 
so  on  from  week  to  week.  Neither  have  intercala- 
tions produced  such  obstructions  to  the  observance  of 
the  true  Sabbath,  as  many  ha\e  supposed.  Every 
acknowledged  intercalation,  it  is  true,  was  made  to 
correct  some  perceived  variation  in  the  lunar  from 
the  solar  time  ;  but,  whether,  according  to  the  Ro- 
man calendar,  a  day  be  added  to  February  every 
fourth  year,  or  according  to  the  Jewish  calendar,  a 
month  be  added  to  February  every  third  year,  as 
it  makes  no  change  in  the  course  of  nature,  so  not 
in  tlie  natural  succesion  of  days  and  v/eeks.  Accor- 
dingly the  Jews,  notwithstanding  their  intercalation  of 
Ve-Adar,  the  second  Adar,  have  never,  since  the  di- 
rection they   received  by  the  falling  of  the  manna, 


80  SABBATH    DISCUSSION. 

had  a  question  among  them,  respecting  the  weekly 
return  of  their  seventh  day  Sabbath.  Christians, 
therefore,  whether  they  observe  the  seventh  day  or 
the  first  are  aHke  certain  as  to  the  time  of  its  weekly 
return  ;  the  first  day  being  always  next  to  the  sev- 
enth. 

Hence  it  will  appear,  that  neither  the  natural  difler 
ences  of  absolute  time,  as  exhibited  on  opposite  hem- 
ispheres and  under  widely  repeated  meridians,  nor 
any  civil  intercalations,  by  whomsoever  or  whenso- 
ever made,  present  any  natural  impossibility  to  the 
observance  of  the  Sabbatic  institution  ;  whether  the 
day  to  be  observed  be  i\iQ  seveyith  or  they/rst  day  o[ 
the  week.  The  same  also  is  practically  acknowledg- 
ed ;  for  both  Jews  and  Christians,  and  the  latter, 
whether  they  observe  the  seventh  day  or  the  first,  have, 
respectively,  entire  fellowship  with  their  brethren,  as 
observing  the  same  day,  however,  by  reason  of  their 
different  locations,  they  differ  from  each  other  in  re- 
gard to  the  absolute  time  they  observe. 

Thus  calculating,  while  1  oppose  the  liberty  which 
some  would  take,  by  making  it  a  matter  of  indiffer- 
ence what  seventh  portion  of  time  they  observe  as  a 
Sabbath,  I  admit  (and  in  perfect  accordance  with 
the  Sabbatic  institution)  all  the  difference  in  regard 
to  absolute  time,  occasioned  by  the  globular  form  of 
the  earth,  and  the  annual  declinations  of  the  sun. 

Lest  I  should  protract  this  letter  to  an  inconvenient 
length,  I  must  reserve  my  thoughts  on  the  other  ques- 
tion alluded  to,  for  the  next  communication. 
Yours  in  Christian  friendship, 

WiM.  PARKINSON. 


LbTTER  IX- 


To  THE  Rev.   Mr.   Maxson. 

June  19,  1835. 
The   question  alluded  to  in  my  last  is  this :    Was 
the  weekly  Sahbath  ichich  God  assigned  to  the  Jews, 
the  same  day  in  weekly  rotation^  which  he   originally 
blessed  and  sanctified-,  or  was  it  a  day  that,  in  weekly 
return  from  the  beginning,  corresponded  to  some  oth- 
er day  of  the  creation  iceek — the  first  week  of  time? 
To  answer  this  question  with  entire  certainty,  is,  in 
my  humble  opinion,  beyond  the  reach   of  human  in- 
vestigation or  attainment.      We   know,   indeed,   that 
the  day  which  the  Jews  were  divinely  required  to  ob- 
gei.,   ^^^   v.eekly   Sabbath,  was,  as  I  shall  hereaf- 
ter show,  luc.d^  known  to  them  by  a  rule  which  they 
could  not  mistake  ;  \.^^  whether  it  was   the   seventh 
day,  in  weekly  .succession  froim  the  creation-week,  or 
a  day  which,  by  such   succession,    corresponded   to 
some  other  day  of  that  week,  remains,  so  far  as  I  can 
discover,    utterly  unascertainable.     Each  side  lias  its 
probabilities  and  its  advocates.     Several  verv  learn- 
ed men,    among  whom   are  Mede  and  KexXnicott, 
have  supposed  that  the  Sabbath  assigned  to  the  Jews, 
though  the  seventh  day  of  the  week  specified  by  the  fal- 
ling of  the  mauna,  was  the  sixth  day,  in  v/eekly  ro- 


82  SABBATH    DISCUSSION. 

tation  from  the  creation-week  ;  and,  consequently, 
that  by  observing  the  day  which,  with  reference  to 
the  Jewish  week,  is  the  first  day,  we  in  fact,  only 
adopt  the  patriarchal  Sabbath,  the  very  day  which, 
from  the  beginning  "God  blessed  and  sanctified." — 
To  this  opinion,  though  with  little  investigation  of  its 
gTounds,  1  was  long  and  strongly  inclined  ;  it  sugges- 
ted several  pleasing  ideas,  and  seemed  to  me,  not 
only  plausible  but  tenable  ;  and  under  its  influence 
1  commenced  the  present  Sabbatic  discussion.  I  drev/ 
my  arguments  in  favor  of  this  opinion  chiefly  from 
the  following  sources. 

Knowing  from  the  earliest  Greek  poets,  Homer  and 
Hesiod,  who  lived  about  nine  hundred  years  before 
the  incarnation  of  Christ,  that  the  idolatrous  nations, 
at  least  some  of  them,  by  tradition  received  from 
their  fathers,  IIa7n  and  Japheth,  held  the  seventh  day 
sacred,  and  that  they  styled  it  6V/zday,  because  they 
devoted  it  to  the  Sun^  their  chief  deity — knowing 
this,  I  say,  it  seemed  to  me  reasonable  and  even  re- 
quisite that  God,  the  more  effectualh^  to  separate  his 
Israel  from  idolatry  and  to  distinguish  them  from  idol- 
atrous nations,  should  have  given  them  a  Stibbath 
falling  on  a  different  day  of  the  week  from  that  which 
had  become  so  profaned. 

Revelation,  too,  seemed  variouslv  ^  lavor  this 
opinion.  For,  1.  God  gave  -  -^^'  ^  ^f  ^^^  year  to 
Israel— a  year  beginning  with  the  month  m  which  he 
brought  them  out  of  Egypt:  This  month,  said  he, 
sJiall  be  unto  you  the  heginning  af  months  :  it  shall  be 
the  first  month  of  the  year  unto  you,     Ex.   xn.  2. 

2.  He  gave  them  a  new  week,  specihed  by  the  tai- 
ling of  the  manna.  Ex.  xvi.  21— 26.     And, 

3.  Their  Sabbaths,  weekly  as  well  as  yearly, 
were  a  standing  sign  of  a  peculiar  relation  between 
God  and  them.     Ex.  xxxi    13,  17.     Moreover— 


SABBATH    DISCUSSION,  83 

4.  upon  the  supposition  that  the  day  which  the 
Jews,  after  theiv  Exodus  i'lom  Egypt,  were  required 
to  observe  as  a  Sabbath,  was  the  same  day,  in  week- 
ly return,  which  had  been  observed  before,  I  could 
see  no  sufficient  reason  why  God  should  have  taken 
the  method  he  did  for  making  it  known  unto  them. 
Ex.  xvi. 

These  arguments,  (convinced  that  they  contain  the 
chief  strength  of  all  that  can  be  said  in  favor  of  the 
opinion  in  question)  I  have  thus  briefly  stated,  hop- 
ing that  such  of  my  readers  as  may  have  been  influ- 
enced by  them,  may  be  prevailed  on  to  reconsider  the 
question  to  which  they  relate  ;  for,  doing  so,  I  doubt 
not,  that  they  will  find,  and,  as  I  have  done,  that  (all 
their  arguments  notwithstanding)  the  chief  thing  aim- 
ed at  must  be  assumed,  namely,  that  the  seventh  day 
of  the  iceek  specified  by  the  faHing  of  the  manna,  was 
the  sixth  day,  in  weekly  return  from  the  creation 
week.  Besides,  if  the  learned  advocates  of  the  opin- 
ion in  question  could  unequivocally  prove  it  to  be  cor- 
rect, they  would  only  prove  what  they  (being  Chris- 
tians and  observers  of  the  first  day)  do  not  believe  ; 
to  wit,  that  the  day  we  observe,  though,  with  refer- 
ence, to  the  Jewish  week,  it  is  the  first  day,  must, 
with  reference  to  the  creation-week,  be  the  seventh 
day.  Convinced,  however,  that  their  opinion  cannot 
be  sustained,  I  conclude,  with  the  generality  of  Chris- 
tians, that  the  Sabbath  day  which  God  assigned  to  the 
Jews,  was  (as  they  themselves  believe)  the  same  day, 
in  weekly  rotation,  which  he  had  blessed  and  sanc- 
tified from  the  beginning.  Nor,  duly  considering 
their  circumstances  at  the  time,  is  there  any  difficul- 
ty in  perceiving  that  the  Jews  really  needed  to  have 
that  day  "made  known  unto  them''  as  it  was.  Neh. 
ix.  14.  They  VNcre  just  brought  out  of  Egypt,  where 
they  had  lived  in  bondage  about  210  years.     See  my 


84  SABBATH      DISCUSSION. 

sermons  on  Deut.  xxxiii.  vol.  i.  Note  on  p.  15.  Af- 
ter Joseph's  death,  for  about  150  years,  they  were  in 
abject  slavery  ;  during  which,  in  all  probability,  they 
were  not  allowed  time  to  observe  the  Sabbath  ;  and, 
moreover,  having  no  records,  they  may  reasonably 
te  supposed  to  have  lost  the  weekly  return  of  the 
day — at  least  to  have  been  in  doubt  respecting  it. — 
Hence  the  kind  and  effectual  means  by  which  the 
Lord  was  pleased  to  make  the  day  known  unto  them. 
Besides,  then  and  subsequently.  He  gave  such  ori- 
ginal injunctions,  prohibitions  and  sanctions,  regar- 
ding the  observance  of  that  day,  as  rendered  the  Sab- 
bath, in  a  manner,  a  new  institution,  and  sufficiently 
distinguished  the  observance  of  the  day  among  the 
heathen  :  the  former  devoting  it  to  the  Creator,  the 
later  to  a  creature.  The  Sabbath,  therefore,  as  the 
Jews  were  required  to  observe  it,  was,  as  noticed  be- 
fore, a  sign  between  God  and  them. 

How  the  Jews  received  the  knowledge  of  their 
weekly  Sabbath,  may  be  seen  more  particularly  in 
the  history  of  their  emigration  from  Egypt  :  some 
account  of  which  follows,  under  dates  corresponding 
to  the  sacred  year,  a  year  peculiar  to  them. 

1  Month,     Abib  ;  Ex.  xiii.  4.  xxiii  15  ;  called  al- 

so iV/^fln;  Neh.  ii.   1.   Esth.  iii.  7. 

14  day,  "  at  even,*'  when  the  next  day  had 
begun,  they  ate  the  first  passovcr.  Ex. 
xii.  6.  18. 

15  day,  probably  soon  after  midnight,  they 
leftRemeses.  Ex.  xii.  29— 37,  Numb, 
xxxii.  8.  Subsequent  journeys  (inclu- 
ding their  passage  through  the  Red  Sea) 
till  they  came  to  Elim,  not  dated.  Num. 
xxxiii.  6 — 9. 

2  Month,    liar  or  lyyar. 

15  day  (having  left  Ehm  before)  they  came 


SABBATH     DISCUSSION.  85 

into  the  wilderness  of  Sin.  Ex.  xvi.   1. 
16  day,  the  manna  (according  to  common 
opinion)  began  to  fall.     This  opinion,   however,  has 
occasioned  a  difficult}^  in  regard  to  the  Sabbath.     For, 
if  the  manna  began  to  fall  on  the  16th,  the  first  Sab- 
bath thereby  indicated  must  have  been  the  22d  ;  but  if 
so,  and  if  the  Sabbath  thus  indicated  was  the  weekly 
return  of  the  patriarchal  Sabbath  continued,  the  15th 
day  of  the  same  month   must  have   been   a  Sabbath 
also  ;  yet  we  know  that  the  children  of  Israel  did  not 
observe  it  as  such,  but  spent  it  on  a  wearisome  jour- 
ney, by  which  they   reached   the  wilderness  of  Sin. 
Their  journey  that  day,  it  is  true,  was  not  so  long  as 
is  generally  supposed  ;  for  the  words  of  Exo.   xvi.   1, 
as  every  attentive  reader  may  perceive,    do  not   as- 
sert that  Israel  "  took  their  journey  from  Elim  ''  that 
^morning,  but  merely  that   they  "came  unto   the  wil^ 
derness  of  Sin  on  that  day,"'  having  journeyed  from 
Elim  we  know  not  when      T^'-'^t,  indeed,  they  did  not 
leave  Elim  on  the  same  aay  on  which  he  arrived   at 
the   wilderness  of  Sin,  is  next   to  certain  ;  for  they 
made  an  intermediate  encampment  at  the   Red   Sea  ; 
that  is,  at  some  arm  or  bay  of  it.     See  Num.  xxxiii 
10.     To  this  place,  it  is  probable,    they  were   led  by 
the  CLOUD,  that  they  might  be  reminded  of  the  mirac- 
ulous manner  in  which,  but   a  few  days  before,  they 
had  been  brought    through   that  sea.     Nevertheless, 
even  from  that  place  to  their  encampment  in  the  wil- 
derness of  Sin,   was,  according  to  Bunting,  sixteen 
miles — a  long  day's  journey  to  be  performed  by    so 
large  a  body  of  people,  encumbered   as  they   must 
have   been,  with  children,  goods,    and  cattle.     It  is' 
therefore  wholly   improbable  that  they   traveled  thus 
far  on  a  Sabbath.     For  admitting  that,  as  before  sup- 
posed, they  came  out  of  Egypt  ignorant  of  the  week- 
ly return  of  the  Sabbath  ;  nay,   admitting  that  even 


96  SABBATH     DISCUSSION", 

Moses  and  Aaron,  though  inspired  ixien,  knew  it  not, 
or  that,  knowing  it,  they  had  received  no  direction  to 
make  it  known  to  Israel — admitting,  I  say,  all  this — 
yet,  knowing  that  all  the  way  from  Succoth,  in  Egypt, 
to  the  flams  of  Moah^  hy  Jordan,  (Num.  x.xxiii.  48. 
49)  their  times  botli  of  journeying  and  of  resting, 
were  governed  by  the  cloud,  and  therefore,  in  effect, 
by  "the  commandment  of  the  Lord;''  (Exo.  xiii^ 
20 — 22  ;  Num.  ix.  17 — 23  ;)  I  cannot  believe  that 
God,  subversive  of  his  own  institution,  would  have 
given  them  direction  to  perform  such  a  journey  on 
a  day  which  he  had  consecrated  to  rest  and  devotion^ 
But  whence  the  necessity  of  supposing  that  the 
twenty-second,  and  therefore  the  fifteenth  of  that 
month  was  a  Sabbath  ?  It  arises  wliolly  from  the  as- 
stimption  that  the  manna  began  to  fall  on  the  sixteenth^ 
which  is  not  certain,  or  even  probable,  as  must,  I 
think,  appear  to  every  one  who  will  deliberately  and 
thoughtfully  read  Exo.  xvi.  2 — 12  ;  for  upon  the 
supposition  that  the  manna  began  to  fail  on  the  siso' 
ieenth  all  the  events  related  in  those  fen  verses  must 
have  been  crowded  into  the  evening  of  the  fifteenth 
day,  and  which  cannot  be  imagined,  without  suppo- 
sing confusion  in  the  divine  economy,  and  a  want  of 
the  usual  time  for  the  trial  of  Israel's  faith.  To  my 
apprehension,  therefore,  the  events  of  the  narative  re- 
terred  to,  with  the  times  requisite  for  their  occur- 
i-ence,  may  be  much  more  naturally  and  rationally 
calculated  thus  :  On  the  ffteenth  day  of  the  month, 
(which  I  will  suppose  to  have  been  the  ffth  day  of 
the  week,)  late  in  the  afternoon,  Israel  encamped  in 
the  wilderness  of  Sin.  They  came  thither  murmur- 
ing, and  inclined  to  persist  therein.  Exo.  xvi.  2,  3. 
That  evening,  the  Lord  by  Moses,  promised  them 
the  manna,  and  gave  them  some  directions  about 
gathering   it.     Ver.  4,    5.     Then,   too,    he  assured 


SABBATH    DISCUSSION.  87 

them  that  "at  even,''  (^without  sn.y'mg  what  even,  or 
by  w\at  means)  they  should  "know  that  the  Lord  had 
brought  them  out  of  Egypt ;  ver.  6  ;  also,  that  while 
in  suspense,  they  should  have  "in  the  morning," 
(not  telling  them  what  morning)  a  sight  *'of  the  glo- 
ry of  the  Lord  ;"  ver.  7.  That  neither  the  evening 
nor  the  morning  intended  was  yet  specified,  but  to  be 
looked  for  in  faith  and  hope  of  the  promised  events, 
is  evident  from  what  follov/s  :  "And  (ver,  8)  Mo- 
ses said,  This  shall  be  7ohen  the  Lord''  (who  still 
reserved  the  times  to  himself,)  "shall  give  you  in 
the  evening  flesh  to  eat,  and  in  the  morning  bread  to 
the  full."  These  promises,  probably,  were  all  spa- 
ken  on  the  evening  of  the  fifteenth  day  of  the  month. 
During  the  sixteenth  day,  they  were  left  in  anxious 
waiting  for  the  blessings  promised.  Here  recollect, 
that  if  the  fifteenth  day  of  the  month,  was  as  suppos- 
ed, the  fifth  day  of  the  week,  the  seventeenth  day  of 
the  month,  must  have  been  the  seventh  day  of  the 
week,  and  therefore  the  patriarchal  Sabbath.  Ae- 
cordingly,  on  that  day,  the  Israelites,  however  igno- 
rant of  its  sanctity,  received  no  direction  to  travel  ; 
but  "in  the  morning" — the  morning  of  that  day,  ao- 
cording  to  promise,  ver  7th,  they,  being  convoked  for 
the  purpose,  were  favored  with  the  sight  of  "the  glo- 
ry of  the  Lord,  appearing  in  the  cloud,  which  coi» 
stantly  went  before  them,  and  which,  at  that  time, 
they  beheld  as  "they  looked  toward  the  wilderness" 
—not  the  wilderness  in  which  they  were,  but  the  wil 
derness  of  Sinai,  whither  they  were  going — and,  as 
the  glory  they  beheld  was  in  an  onward  direction, 
they  were  thereby  encouraged  to  hope  that  the  Lord 
as  he  had  promised  to  Moses,  (Exo.  iii.  1 — 12)  would 
conduct  them  to  Mount  Horeh,  and  there  give  them 
still  greater  manifestations  of  his  glory.  See  Exo, 
xvi.  9,  10.  Then  the  Lord,  who  before  had  spoken 
f2 


SB  SABBATH    DISCUSSlOiV. 

to  them  by  Moses  and  Aaron,  spoke  to  them  out  oT 
the  CLOUD,  repeating  and  thereby  confirming  his 
promise,  respecting  both  the  evening  and  the  moru- 
ing  grant.      See  11th  and  12th  verses. 

Hereupon  followed  the  fulfilment  of  the  promises 
thus  made  and  confirmed.  "And  (ver.  13-)  it  carne 
to  pass,"  as  the  Lord  had  spoken,  "that  at  even," 
the  even  of  the  seventeenth  day  of  the  month,  at  the 
goingout  of  the  last  patriarchal  Sabbath,  which  began 
tlie  proceeding  even,  "  the  quails  came  up,''  proba- 
bly from  the  Red  Sea,  the  Arabian  Galph,  &c.  ; 
"and  (it  being  even,  and  they  being  weary  of  flying) 
covered  the  camp,'"  the  place^of  Israel's  encampment, 
Providence  so  directing\  On  this  occasion,  the  quails 
came  only  tliat  even,  though  on  a  future  occasion, 
they  came  daily  for  a  whole  month.  See  Nut«.  xi. 
19,  2.  This  as  may  be  seen,  Num.  x.  11,  was 
their  after  the  second  month  of  the  second  year  of 
pilgrimage  "And,  (returning  to  Exo.  xvi  13), 
in  the  morning,"  that  is,  the  morning  of  the  eighteenth 
day  of  the  month,  the  day  after  the  last  patriarchal 
Sabbath,  and  therefore  on  the  morning  of  the  first 
day  of  the  week,  "  the  dew  lay  round  about  the  host,''' 
which  dew  being  exhaled,  the  manna  appeared  to  the 
Israelites  at  the  first  sight  of  which  "  they  (ver.  15) 
said  one  to  another  Pvlan  hu,  What  is  this  ?  For  thej 
wist  not  what  it  was.  And  Moses  said  unto  them, 
,This  is  the  bread  which  the  Lord  hath  given  you  to 
cat."  Moreover,  guided  by  divine  inspiration,  h» 
directed  them  when  and  in  ivhat  quanfies  to  gather 
the  manna,  and  especially  that  on  the  sixth  day^  (be- 
ginning with  the /rsi  day  it  fell)  they  should  gather  a 
double  quaniity,  because  on  the  seventh  day  none 
would  fall ;  the  Lord  thus  showing  them,  by  a  rul« 
which  could  not  be mistaken,  what  day  in  weekly  re- 
turn, ho  required  them  to  observe  as  a  day  of  rest  and 


SABBATH    DISCUSSION.  !^§ 

'devotion.  See  from  ver.  17  to  ver.  31.  In  like  man-: 
Ber,  their  week  w£is  constantly  measured,  and  their 
weekly  Sabbath  constantly  demonstrated  during  for-  : 
ty  years,  even  till  they  came  to  the  borders  of  the  land  i 
of  Canaan.  See  ver.  35,  and  comp.  Josh,  v  12. 
i3eginning,  then,  with  the  eighteenth  day  on  which  \ 
the  manna  began  to  fall,  the  first  Sabbath  thereby  in-  ■ 
dicated,  was  the  twenty-fourth  day  of  the  second  "^ 
month  of  the  sacred  year,  and  which,  I  doubt  not,  j 
was  the  seventh  day,  in  weekly  return  from  the  crea-  ] 
■tion-week  ;  God  choosing  thus  miraculously  and  un-  \ 
equivocally  to  make  known  the  day  which  he  had  ori-  I 
ginally  blessed  and  sanctified,  when  the  knowledge  of  \ 
it  was  lost  among  men,  and  when  no  dint  of  human  ; 
investigation  could  possibly  have  ascertained  it.  j 

Here  I  might  safely  discontinue  the  consideration  ^ 
of  the  present  question  ;  having,  I  trust,  made  it  sufii-  ' 
ciently  probable,  if  not  evident,  that  the  seventh  dav  ' 
of  the  week,  measured  by  the  falling  of  the  manna,  ! 
was  the  very  day,  in  weekly  return,  which  God  ori- 
;ginally  blessed  and  sanctified.  Gen.  ii.  2,  3.  But,  . 
to  make  an  obscure  part  of  Israel's  history  more  plain 
and  interesting,  especially  to  children,  I  beg  leave  to  ; 
add  a  brief  journal  of  their  travels,  from  the  time  they  i 
received  the  manna  till  they  received  the  Law.  j 

FIRST    WEEK,  \ 

This  week,  I  suppose  the  Israelites  to  have  spent 
^s  follows  :  allowing  them  three  days  from  the  first 
falling  of  the  m_anna  before  they  removed — a  time  i 
short  enough  for  them  to  have  acquired  a  praclical  I 
knowledge  of  gathering  and  preparing  that  remarka- 
ble bread,  which,  thereafter,  waste  be  their  daily  food. 
Id.  w.  18  d.  m.   Manna   began  to   fall.  ')  Stationary  in  | 


2 19- 

2 20- 


the   wiLJer- 
ness  of  Sin. 


4 21 .  after  gathermg  the  manna,  they  jour- 


90  SABRATH     DISCUSSiaN. 


ncyed  to  Dophxah.  Num.  xxxiii.  12. 
[12  miles.] 

-22 -,       do.       do.       Alush.  Num     xxxiii. 

13.      [12  miles.] 

-23 ,  (Friday)  after  gathering  a  double  por- 
tion of  manna,  they  prepared  for  the 
Sabbath. 

-24 -,   they  spent  in    Sabbatic  devotions   at 

Alush.      So'  also  say  the  Rabbins. 

SECOND   \\^EK. 


I  d.  w.  25  d.  m.  after  gathering  the  manna,  they  Jour- 
neyed to  Rephidim.  Num.  xxxiii.  14. 
[8  miles.]  Here  they  continued 
to  the  end  of  the  second  month,  which 
consisted  only  of  29  days.  See  Ling 
Sacra,  under  lyyar.    Chald. 


Four   days  ;  during  which  they  must 
have   been  variously  and   constantly 
employed,  as  appears  by  the   record 
of  events  referred   to  that   station. — 
See  Ex.   xvii.   xviii.   chapters. 
At  this  point  I  avail  myself  of  the  advantage  arising 
from  the  date  of  Israel's  arrival  at   Sinai  i   "In  the 
third  month,  when  the  children  of  Israel  were  gone 
forth  out  of  Egypt,  the  same  day  came  they  into  the 
wilderness  of  Sinai.  *'     Ex.   xix.  1.     But    here  the 
question   arises,'^  What   day  is   meant  by   the  same 
(lay  ?  No  doubt  they  came  to  Sinai  on  the  same  day 
they  left  Rephidim  ;  the  journey,  according  to  Bun- 
ting, being  only  8   miles.     Yet   this   could  not  be 
the  sense   of  the   date  in  question  ;  nothing  in  the 
connection   going  to  support  it.     I  would  fain  have 
understood  the  day  intended  to  mean  the  sa?ne  day  of 


SABBATH    DISCTJSSTON.  '9l 

t"h€  month  on  which  they  left  Remeses  in  Egypt, 
which  weknov/  was  the  15th  Num.  xxxiii.  3.  But 
this  would  be  inconsistent  with  a  tradition  universal 
among  the  Jews,  and  generally  accorded  in  by  Chris- 
tians, that  the  Law  was  delivered  on  the  50th  day 
from  the  first  Passover.  Besides,  the  best  Jewish 
authorities  assert  that  their  nation  received  the  law  at 
Sinai,  on  the  sixth  day  of  the  third  month,  called  Si- 
van.  Some  think  the  same  day  means  the  day  bear- 
ing the  same  ordinal  number  with  the  month  to  which 
it  belonged ;  or,  in  other  words,  that  it  was  the  third 
day  of  the  third  month.  But  the  Targum  of  Jona- 
than, perhaps  the  best  authority  in  the  case,  inter- 
prets the  satne  day  to  mean  that  on  which  the  month 
came  in  ;  thus  making  it  to  be  the  frst  day  of  the 
month.  So  understanding  the  date,  it  will  appear 
that  on  the 

1  d.  m.  on  the  G  d.  w.,  and  therefore  after  gathering 
a  double  portion  of  the  manna, 
th-e  Israelites  journeyed  from 
R-efhidim  to  Sinai.  Numb, 
xxxiii.  15  [8  miles]  and  pre- 
pared for  the  Sabbath. 

"2 7 ,    (being  the  Sabbath)  Moses  went  up  to 

meet  the  Lord  in  the  mount,  and  re- 
ceived a  message  to  Israel.  Ex.  xix.  3—6. 

i 3 ,    Moses  convened  the  elders — delivered 

to  them  his  message — received  their  re- 
ply, and  reported  it  to  the  Lord.  Ex. 
xii.  7    8, 

4 2 ,..  "the  Lord  said  unto  Moses,  Lo,  I  come 

unto  thee  in  a   thick  cloud,   (meaning 

when  he   would  deliver  the  Law.) 

"Go  unto  the  people,  and  sanctify 
them  to-day  (the  4th)  and  to-morrow,'' 
(tlie 


92  SABBAIH     DISCUSSION. 


•,)  during  which  two  days  Moses  was  re- 
quired to  urge  tlie  people  to  observe 
the  utmost  personal  sanctit)',  "and 
let  them,"' thus  instructed,  *'wash  their 
clothes,  and  be  ready  against  the  third 
day  :  for  the  third  day,  '^  from  that, 
which  would  be  the 

■  "the  Lord  will  come  down  in  the  sight 
of  all  the  people,  upon  Mount  Sinai,'* 
to  deliver  the  Law.  Ex.  xix,  9 — IL 
Comp.  V.  16. 


Still,  however,  it  remains  to  be  shovv n  how  it  is  true, 
that  the  law  was  given  on  the  50th  da}^  from  the  first 
Passover,  or  from  the  departure  of  Israel  out  of 
Egypt.  For,  as  they  ate  the  first  Passoever  on  the 
14th  of  the  first  month,  (^Ahib  or  Nisan,)  which  con- 
tained 30  days,  and  left  Remeses  on  the  the  15th, 
there  remained,  (including  the  day  of  their  departure) 
16  days  of  that  month  ;  which,  with  the  29  days  of 
which  the  second  month  (Ii/i/ar)  consisted,  and  the  first 
six  days  of  the  third  month,  [Sivan)  amount  to  5  days. 
Hence  it  is  evident,  that  when  the  Jews  say  that  the  law- 
was  given  on  the  50th  day  from  the  first  Passover,  or 
from  the  Exodus,  tliey  must  calculate  the  days  irj 
question,  as  they  were  aftertcard  directed  to  calculate 
the  time  between  the  Passover  and  the  Feast  of  weeks 
or  Pentecost — a  feast  designed  chiefly  as  an  annual 
memorial  of  the  giving  of  the  law.  This  calculation, 
strictly  made,  runs  thus  ;  The  Passover-lamb  was 
eaten  on  the  14th  day,  at  even,  that  is,  after  sunset  ; 
and  so,  when  the  next  day  had  commenced.  On  the 
I5th,  the  first  day  of  the  Feast  of  unleavened  bread, 
which  accompanied  the  Passover,  (Ex.  xii.  17 — 20,) 
and  again  on  the  seventh  or  last  day  of  that  feast, 
they  were  required  to  hold  a  solemn  convocation,  and 
to  abstain  from  all  servile  work  :  for  which  reasons^ 


SABBATH     DISCUSSION.  93 

each  of  these  two  days  was  called  a  Saobath,  what- 
ever day  of  the  week  it  might  be.  The  18th  day  be- 
gan at  sunset,  when  the  first  of  these  festival  sabbaths 
ended,  and  was,  therefore,  called  "  the  morrow  after 
the  Sabbath  ;"'  and  from  this  morrow,  the  day  on  which 
the  sheaf  of  first  fruits  was  offered  ;  not  from  the 
ending,  but  the  beginning  of  the  day,  and  therefore 
7vith  it,  they  were  to  count  seven  Sabbaths,  that  is 
weeks,  or  49  days  complete,  when  came  the  50th  day, 
the  first  day  of  the  Feast  of  loeeks  ;  so  called  because 
its  time  was  ascertained  by  counting  the  seven  weeks, 
or  49  days  just  noticed  ;  as,  afterward,  it  was  called 
Pentecost,  from  the  Greek  work  pentekoste  fif- 
tieth ;  it  being  the  fiftieth  day,  beginning  with  the 
16th  of  Nisan,  the  morrow  after  the  first  Sabbath  of 
the  Passover.      See  Levit.  xxiii.  5,  11,  15,  16. 

The  pains  I  have  taken  on  the  16th  chapter  of  Ex- 
odus, to  place  the  events  of  it  in  such  order  as  to  al- 
low the  requisite  time  for  their  convenient  occurrence 
— and,  on  the  subsequent  history  of  Israel,  so  far  as 
to  show  that  they  received  the  Decalogue  on  the  day 
which,  afterward,  they  were  required  to  celebrate  in 
the  annual  observance  of  the  Feast  of  weeks,  more 
commonly  called  Pentecost,  are,  as  all  attentive  rea- 
ders of  this  letter  must  perceive,  if  pains  is  taken,  |not 
with  a  view  to  any  distinct  advantage  in  the  matter  of 
dispute  in  which  I  am  engaged — but,  to  contribute  a 
mite  toward  the  helping  of  those,  whether  children  or 
adults,  who  are  desirous  to  obtain  a  better  understand- 
ing of  the  Holy  Scriptures.  Let  not  my  worthy  cor- 
respondent, however,  suppose  that  I  mean  to  treat 
him  or  his  claims  with  neglect.  For,  if  the  Lord  will, 
he  shall  hear  from  me,  before  long,  on  the  question 
between  us.  Till  then,  I  remain  his  friend  and  well 
wisher.  WM.  PARKINSON. 


LETTER  X. 


To  THE  Rev.  Mr.  Maxson. 

July,  1835. 
Dear  Sir, — I  now  come  to  the  chief  question  between 
us,  namely,  whether  the  seventh  or  the  first  day  of 
the  week  should  be  observed  as  the  day  of  rest  and 
of  public  worship,  under  the  Gospel  dispensation.  In 
your  second  letter  to  me,  you  say,  "The  whole  dif- 
ference between  us  on  this  subject  turns  upon  the  va- 
lidity of  the  Decalogue.'^  Consequently,  in  my  Re- 
ply, I  confined  myself  to  what  you  justly  call  "the 
Sabbath  of  the  fourth  commandment,^^  and  which, 
in  my  humble  opinion,  I  abundantly  proved  to  have 
been  peculiar  to  national  Israel.  This,  however,  I 
did  in  view  of  what  subsequently,  (and  I  hope  suc- 
cessfully) I  endeavored  to  establish  ;  to  wit,  that  the 
seventh  day  specified  by  the  falling  of  the  manna, 
and  recognized  by  the  fourth  commandment,  was  the 
same  day,  in  weekly  return,  which  God  originally 
blessed  and  sanctified,  thus  showing  that  when  I 
contend  that  the  Sabbath  of  the  fourth  commandment 
was  peculiar  to  the  Jews,  I  mean  that  it  was  so  in  re- 
gard to  the  manner  of  its  observance,  as  specified  by 
that  commandment,  and  as  illustrated  and  enforced 
by  subsequent  injunctions  ;  for  the  day  itself  (aside 
from  the  characteristic  peculiarities  in  its  observance) 


SABBATH    DISCUSSION'. 


95 


was  the  same  which  had  been  the  seventh  in  weekly 
rotation  from  the  beginning  of  the  world.  Nor  do  I 
give  this  explanation  without  being  fully  aware  of 
the  use  you  will  make  of  it  : — you  will  say,  As  the 
seventh  day  was  the  weekly  Sabbath  before  it  re- 
ceived its"^  Mosical  peculiarities,  so  it  remains  the 
Sabbath  since  divested  of  those  peculiarities. 

This,  at  first  sight,  seems  plausible.  But  recol- 
lect, my  brother,  that  we  serve  a  Master,  who  "in 
all  things  has  the  pre-eminence'' — a  Master  whom 
God  the  Father  delighted  to  honor-a  Master  to  whom 
patriarchs  and  prophets  ministered,  and  for  whose 
dispensation  the  two  preceding  ones,  the  patriarchal 
and  the  Mosaical,  were  only  preparatory.  "Your 
father  Abraham,''  said  Christ  to  tlie  Jews,  "rejoiced 
to  see  my  day  ;  and  he  saw  it,"  in  prophetic  vision, 
**and  was  glad."  And  again  He  said,  "Before  A- 
braham  was,  I  am."  John  viii.  56,  58.  And  an 
Apostle  asserting,  indeed,  the  fidelity  of  Moses,  but 
maintaining  the  incomparable  superiority  of  Christ, 
says,  "Moses  verily  was  faithful"  (to  God)  "in  all 
his  house,"  wherein  he  officiated  "as  a  servant,-^ 
and  that  only  as  subserving  the  future  manifestations 
of  the  Heir  ;  it  being  "for  a  testimony"  (propheti- 
cally and  typically)  "of  those  things  which"  (more 
clearly)  "were  to  be  spoken  after"  as  they  are  found 
recorded  in  the  New  Testament.  "But  Christ  as  a 
Son"  (^the  only  begotten  of  the  Father,  full  of  grace, 
and  truth,  was  faithful)  over  his  own  house,  the 
Church  of  which  he  is  Proprietor  as  well  as  Ruler. — 
Heb.  ill.  5,  6. 

The  Mosaical  dispensation,  as  well  as  the  patri- 
archal, left  obscurity  on  the  way  to  God  :  "For  the 
law  made  nothing  perfect,  but  the  bringing  in  of  a 
better  hope  did,  by  the  which  we  draw  nigh  unto 
God." — Heb.  vii,  19.  Comp.  chap.  ix.  ver.    8.     The 


96 


SABBATH    DISCUSSION. 


sacrifices  offered  by  the  legal  high  priest,  though  of- 
ten repeated,  could  not  take  away  sins  ;  Heb.  x.  1. 
4;  but  Christ,  "by  one  offering,  hath  perfected  for- 
ever them  that  are  sanctified  ;''  ver.  14.  The  legal 
high  priest,  as  his  offerings  were  not  satisfactory  to 
divine  Justice,  could  only  represent  the  people  for 
whom  he  officiated  in  the  liohj  iilaces  made  with  hands, 
those  of  the  tabernacle  and  temple,  and,  of  course, 
only  before  the  Schecheenah,  a  mere  symbol  of  the 
Divine  Presence  ;  but  Christ,  having  put  aivay  sins 
by  the  sacrifice  of  himself,  entered  into  Heaven  itself 
now  to  appear  the  immediate  presence  of  God  for  us. 
Heb.  ix.  24,  26.  Nor  did  the  legal  dispensation 
comport  with  the  promise  which  it  so  much  labored 
to  illustrate.  God  had  said  to  Abraham,  "In  thy 
seed'-  (which  is  Christ,  Gal.  iii.  16)  "shall  all  the 
nations  of  earth  be  blessed  ;''  Gen.  xxii.  18  ;  but  the 
Mosaic  dispensation,  as  it  was  restricted  to  one  na- 
tion, the  Jewish,  could  not  reach  the  extent  of  the 
promise.  Not  so  the  dispensation  of  Christ  ;  for 
this,  like  the  blessings  of  justification  promised,  ex- 
tends to  all  nations.  Go,  said  he  and  teach  all 
nations — Go  ye  into  all  the  2vorld,  and  preach 
tho  Gospel  to  every  creature.  Com.  Rom.  iv.  13, 
and  Gal.  iii.  8,  22. 

Now,  as  the  dispensation  of  Christ,  compared  with 
that  of  Moses,  is  ne-w  and  pre-efnine7it,  it  must  be  %jh- 
vious  that  all  the  institutions  appertaining  to  it,  should 
also  be  7iew  and  appropriate,  all  serving  to  com- 
memorate his  death  and  res.urrection  ;  and  that  they 
should  be  sanctioned  either  by  his  injunction  or  by 
his  example.  Such  they  arc.  The  Gospel  reports 
an  illustrates  the  great  redemption  wrought  by  him  ; 
Acts  xiii.  28,  39.  Baptisin  (while  it  implies  his 
death,  as  also  the  death  of  the  subject  to  legal  hopes 
and  sinful  ways,)  commemorates  his  burial  and  res- 


SABBATH     DISCUSSION.  97, 

urrection. — Rom.  vi.  3 — 11  ;  vii.  4  ;  Col.  ii.  11,  12. 
And,  in  partaking  of  the  eucharisticai  supper,  Beiiv- 
ers  slioio  forth  the  Lord's  death  till  he  come,  1  Cor* 
xi.  26.  These,  rightly  understood,  will  appear  to 
be  the  ''^Aree  that  bear  witness  on  earth;''  to  wit, 
the  Gospe/ called  the  5];/r/^  it  being  the  ministration  of 
the  Spirit  ;  2  Cor.  iii.  8  ;  Baptism,  denoted  by  watery 
the  element  in  which  it  is  administered  ;  Acts  viii. 
28  ;  and  the  Supi^er  signified  by  the  blood,  meaning 
the  blood  of  Christ,  the  shedding  of  which  is  com- 
memorated by  the  pouring  forth  of  the  wine  used  in 
this  ordinance  ;  and  these  three  agree  in  one,  all 
having  respected  to  the  same  person,  and  concurring 
to  proclaim  and  commemorate  him  as  the  very  Christ. 
I  John  V.  8. 

But  to  the  matter  in  question.  The  seventh  day  even 
under  the  patriarchal  as  well  as  under  the  Mosaical 
dispensation,  had  been  observed  as  a  weekly  memo- 
rial of  God's  work  of  creation  ;  yet  with  this  differ* 
ence,  that  under  the  latter  is  served  also  as  a  me- 
morial of  his  redemption  of  Israel  out  of  Egyptian 
bondage. — Exo.  xx.  8 — 11,  and  Deut.  v.  12,  15. 
How  much  rather,  then,  should  some  appropriafe 
day  be  abserved  under  the  Gospel  dispensation,  as  a 
remberancer  of  the  work  of  creation,  grown  still 
more  ancient,  and  therefore  more  likely  to  be  for- 
gotten— and  of  redemption  by  Clii'ist,  so  much  more 
important  than  that  of  Israel  out  of  Egypt,  and 
which,  under  the  present  dispensation,  like  that  un- 
der the  former,  should  be  had  in  in  constant  and 
grateful  rememberance.  Now,  to  commemorate 
these  greag;  events,  the  observance  of  the  seventh 
day  could  answer  only  in  part  ;  it  might  still  serve, 
as  it  had  done,  to  commemorate  the  work  of  ere 
Rtion  ;  but  with  no  possible  propriety  could  \t 
commemorate  the  more  interesting  work  of  redemp- 


93  SABBATH    DISCUSSION. 

tion.  Nor  could  this  twofold  purpose  be  so  apt- 
ly answered  by  the  observance  of  any  other  day,  as 
it  is  by  the  observance  of  the  first  day  of  the  week. 
For, 

1.  This  is  emphatically  the  creation-day^  the  day 
in  which  God  created  all  the  substance  of  universal 
nature  out  of  nothing.  "In  the  beginning,'"  at  once, 
by  His  own  omnipotent  Word,  "God  created  the 
heaven  and  the  earth,''  that  is,  the  elements  of  both, 
and  of  all  things  appertaining  to  them.  Gen.  i.  1. 
The  word  hasha?nayim,  being  plural,  might  more 
properly  be  rendered  the  heavens,  as  it  is  in  chap, 
ii.  4.  "And  the  earth  was  without  form,''  a  chaotic 
mass,  "and  void,''  or  empty  ;  having  neither  inhab- 
itants nor  production.  How  different  when  finished  ! 
Nevertheless  no  additional  substance  was  produced 
out  of  nothing  ;  all  that  remained  being  only  forma- 
tion out  of  what  strickly  speaking,  was  created  -on 
the  first  day.  Hence  the  distinction  in  these  two 
modes  of  Divine  operation,  noted  by  the  two  appro- 
priate terms  hara  and  gnasa,  the  former  signifying 
created,  the  latter,  made,  fitted,  finished,  Sfc.  Ac- 
cordingly, Moses,  speaking  of  created  substances, 
says  asher  hara  eloliim  lagnasoth,  which  God  crea- 
ted to  make  ;  {or  the  lamed  prefixed  to  gnasoth  con- 
not  mean  and,  as  in  our  translation,  but  to,  as  1 
have  rendered  it.  Gen.  ii.  3.  Comp.  the  the  7,  9 
and  19  verses.  Yet,  as  none  but  the  Almighty 
could  have  reduced  the  crude  mass  of  created  mat- 
ter to  order,  or  have  formed  organic  bodies,  or 
have  given  life,  either  animal  or  vegetative,  Moses 
justly  says,  "In  six  days  the  Lord  made  heaven  and 
earth,  the  sea,  and  all  that  in  them  is,*'  because  so 
many  days  he  employed  in  bringing  forth  the  fin- 
ished universe  of  creatures  ;  though  the  substance 
of  all  was  created  out  of  nothing  in  the  first  day. 


SABBATH      DISCUSSION.  99 

Most  fitly,  therefore,  do  we  commemorate  the  work 
of  creation,  by  observing  the  first  day  of  the  week, 
as  corresponding,  in  weekly  rotation,  to  the  first  day 
of  time.     And, 

2.  The  first  day  of  the  week  was  validly  the  day 
oi  redemption.  For  though  the  Lamb  of  God,  as  the 
atoning  sacrifice  for  the  sins  of  those  He  represen- 
ted, was  offered  on  the  sixth  day,  the  acceptance  of 
the  sacrifice  was  not  openly  declared  till  the  ensuing 
first  day,  when  he  was  raised  and  discharged. 
From  the  time  of  his  arrest,  till  the  time  of  his  res- 
urrection, His  enemies  seemed  victorious,  and  His 
friends  were  in  anxious  suspense.  But  His  resurrec- 
tion turned  the  tables.  The  assurance  of  this  filled 
his  enemies  with  perplexity,  and  his  disciples  with 
gladness.  Matt,  xxviii.  11 — 15;  and  John  xx.  20. 
On  the  truth  of  this  too,  the  hope  of  the  Church  en- 
tirely depends  :  "If  Christ  be  not  raised,"  Christians, 
"your  faith  is  vain  ;  ye  are  yet  in  your  sins.''  I  Cor. 
XV.  17.  "But  now  is  Christ  risen  from  the  dead,  and 
become  the  first  fruits  of  them  that  slept ;''  meaning 
both  of  them  that  had  slept,  and  of  all  that  ever  should 
sleep  in  Him.  Ver.  20.  Comp.  I.  Thes.  iv.  14 — 18. 
Others,  it  is  true,  were  raised  fiom  the  sleep  of  death 
before  Christ  ;  but  as  they  were  raised  only  to  a 
mortal  life  and  died  again,  Christ  was  the  first  that 
was  raised  to  an  immortal  life  ;  death  having  no  more 
power  over  him.  Rom.  vi.  9.  Comp.  Acts  xxvi.  23. 
Christ,  in  his  resurrection,  is  said  to  have  hecome  the 
first  fruits y  because  therein,  He  became  the  antitype 
of  the  sheaf  of  first  fruits  presented  to  the  Lord,  on 
the  morrow  after  the  Sabbath,  that  is,  the  first  of  the 
two  sabbaths  appertaining  to  the  feast  of  unleavened 
bread.  Levit.  xxiii.  10,  11.  The  fulfilment  too,  of 
the  type  of  first  fruits,  in  the  resurrection  of  Christ, 
is  full  of  hope  to  the  Church  :  for  as  the  acceptance 


100  SABBATH    DISCUSSION. 

of  the  first  fruits,  authorized  the  gathering  in  of  all 
the  harvest,  so  the  acceptance  of  tlie  risen  Jesus, 
gives  assurance  of  the  resurrection  and  acceptance 
of  all  that  sleep  in  Him,  to  a  life  of  immortality 
and  glory  •'  Because  I  live,  said  he  to  his  disciples, 
ye  shall  live  also.  John  xiv.  19.  Comp.  Philip,  iii.  21. 
Moreover, 

3.  On  the  first  day  of  tlie  week  the  manna  began 
to  fall.  This  has  no  dependence  on  the  day  of  the 
month,  nor  on  any  course  of  human  reasoning,  but 
wholly  on  Divine  demonstration.  For  on  whatever 
day  of  the  month  the  manna  began  to  fall,  it  must 
have  been  on  the  ^r*^  day  of  the  week,  the  week 
thereby  measured  ;  seeing  it  constantly  fell  six  days 
in  succession,  and  was  suspended  on  the  seventh  / 
this  being  the  Sabbath.  Now,  as  we  know  from  the 
6th  chapter  of  John,  that  the  manna  was  a  type  of 
Christ,  and  that  he  is  most  evidently  set  forth  in  the 
Gospel,  so  we  know  from  the  2d  chapter  of  the  Acts, 
that  the  Gospel,  after  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  be- 
gan to  be  preached  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  whicli^ 
as  shown  already,  was  the  first  day  of  the  week, 
which  day  was  thereby  designated  as  the  day  which, 
in  its  weekly  return,  should  constantly  be  appropria- 
ted to  acts  of  devotion,  and  especially  to  preaching 
and  hearing  the  Gospel.  Besides,  as  on  the  sixth  day 
of  the  week  there  fell  a  double  quantity  of  manna 
preparatory  to  the  Sabbath  ;  so,  dividing  time  into  a 
week  o^  seven  thousand  years,  it  may  be  safely  said 
tliat  during  the  sixth  day,  the  sixth  thousand  years, 
(in  the  835th  of  which  we  nov/  are)  there  must  be  a 
more  extensive  and  a  more  abundant  preaching  of 
the  Gospel  of  Christ,  than  ever  before — that,  by 
means  thereof,  "the  wliole  earth  may  be  filled  with 
his  glory,''  preparatory  to  the  great  millennial  Sab- 
bath.    Psal.  Ixxii.  19.'    For  before  the  Sabbath,   tho 


SABBATH    DISCUSSION.  101 

waters  of  the  sanctuary  will  have  become  a   river  so 
deep  and  wide  as  to  be  impassable  ;  that  is,  so  univer- 
sally diffused,  that  no   place  will  be   found  on    earth 
where  the  Gospel  will  not  be.       See    Ezek.    xlvii.  5. 
Comp.  liab.  a.  14.      How  much  work,    then,    within 
less  then  200  years,  remains  to    be    accomplished  by 
the  missionary  angel  (an  emblem  of  the   gospel   min- 
istry) flying    through   heaven,    (the     region    of   the 
Church,)  having  the  everlasting   Gospel    to  preach    to 
them  that  dwell  on  the   earth,    even   to   every   nation, 
and  kindred,  and  tongue,  and  people.      Rev.    xiv.  6. 
And,  to  secure  success,  that    Holy  Spirit,   the  ascen- 
sion gift  of  Christ,  bestowed  on    the    day    of   Pente- 
cost, has  remained,  and  will   still    rema'in   with    the 
Church,  preparing  men  for  the  work  of  the    Gospel 
ministry,  turning  sinners  from  darkness  to  light,  and 
exciting  converts — nay  rich  worldlings  also,  to    acts 
of  benevolence,  till  all  "the  ransomed  of  the    Lord" 
shall  be  gathered  in.      Is.  lix.  21.    Eph.    ii.    10 — 14. 
Thus  it  will  be  made  to  appear,  that  "the   Lord    of 
host,"  on    whose   infallible  resources,  gracious   and 
providential,  this  work  depends,  and   who,    speaking 
of  its  performance,  hath  said,    "Not    by  might,    nor 
by  power,   but  by  my  Spirit,"  "will    yet  for  this    be 
inquired  of  by  the  house  of  Israel  to  do  it  for  them," 
and  will,  at  pleasure,  cause  the    silver   and   the  gold, 
which  he  claims  as  his  own,  to  be  consecrated  to  his 
service       See  Zech.  iv.  16.  Ezk.   xxxvi.   37.    Hagg. 
ii.  8.  Mich.  iv.  13. 

Be  not  too  confident,   my  brother,    that    any    ob- 
jections you  have  in  store  can  overthrow  what  I  have 
said,  until  you  shall  have  read  my  next  letter. 
Yours  in  the  Lord, 
WM.  PARKINSON. 


LETTER  XL 


To  THE  Rev.   Mr.   Maxson. 

Augvs',  7  1833. 
Dear  Sir, — You  will  naturally  expect  me  in  this 
letter,  to  consider  the  well  known  grounds  of  your 
principal  objection  to  the  contents  of  my  last.  In 
this  respect,  you  shall  not  be  disappointed.  But,  be- 
fore I  proceed,  allow  me  briefly  to  recapitulate  my 
reasons  for  believing  in  the  revealed  sanctifieation 
of  the  ^rst  day  of  the  week. — -1.  It  was  emphatically 
the  day  of  creation. — 2.  It  was  validly  the  day  of 
redemption^  it  being  the  day  on  which  Christ,  as  the 
SURETY  of  those  He  represented,  was  corporeally 
raised,  and  \icariously  discharged. — 3.  It  was  tha 
day  on  which,  as  typifying  Christ  in  the  Gospel,  the 
manna  began  to  fall.  Comp.  John  vi.  with  Ex.  xvL 
Hence — 4.  It  was  that  pentecostal  day,  on  which 
the  ascended  Jesus  according  to  promise  endued  his 
disciples  u'ith  poiver  from  on  high,  by  bestowing  on 
tliem  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  his  ascension  gift  ;  and 
when  (for  the  first  time  after  his  resurrection)  ho 
caused  his  Gospel  to  be  preached  ;  wherein  he  con- 
stantly exhibits  himself  as  the  true  bread,  the  antitype 
of  the  manna.  Moreover,  by  thus  variously  dis- 
tinguishing the  First  day  of  the  week,  Christ  plain- 
ly indicated  it  to  be   his  will,    that  this  day,  in   ita 


SABBATH     DISCUSSION.  10^ 

weekly  return,  should  be  statedly  devoted  to  sanctU' 
ary  purpose,  and  especially  to  the  preaching  and 
hearing  of  his  Gospel.  See  Luke  xxiv.  49.  Act3 
I  8.  ii.   1—4.  14.  d:c. 

With  Sabbatarians,  however,  I  am  aware  that  all 
this,  in  reference  to  the  matter  under  discussion, 
stands  for  nothing.  You  deny  that  Christ  was  raised 
on  \\\Q  first  day  of  the  week,  and,  to  support  it,  deny 
that  he  was  crucified  on  the  sixth  day  of  the  week, 
commonly  called  Friday.  Of  the  latter,  you  seem  to 
be  confident,  because  on  the  day  of  the  crucifixion 
*<was  the  preparation  of  the  passover."  John  xix.  14. 

In  order,  then,  to  arrive  at  a  Scriptural  decision  of 
tliis  importrtnt  question,  it  will  be  lound  essentially 
helpful  to  recollect  some  revealed  facts  respecting  the 
passover,  and  the  feast  of  unleavened  bread,  with  its 
sabbaths,  &c.  The  facts  alluded  to  are  these  : — 1, 
That  the  Israelites,  at  least  in  regard  to  their  reli- 
gious festivals,  were  required  to  observe  a  new  year, 
beginning  with  the  month  in  which  they  were  brought 
out  of  Egypt.  Ex.  xii.  2.  This  month  was  first 
named  Abie,  new  fruits  or  ears  of  corn,  [Ex.  xiii. 
4.  xxiii.  15.  xxxiv.  18.  Deut.  xvi.  1.]  It  was  so 
called,  no  doubt,  because  at  about  that  time  *'tho 
barley  was  in  the  ear."  Ex.  ix.  31.  Comp.  Levit. 
ii.  14.  Afterward,  however,  it  was  called  Nisan  ; 
Neh.  xii.  1.  Esth.  iii.  7.  This  name,  if  derived 
from  nus  to  fee,  signifies  aflight,  and  might  be  de- 
signed to  remind  Israel  of  their  hasty  departure  out 
of  Egypt.  Ex.  ii.  29 — 34.  But  if  derived  from  na- 
sas  to  raise  or  display,  it  may  denote  a  standard  or 
banner,  raised  or  displayed  ;  because  that  month 
(answering  nearly  to  March,  O.  S.)  was  the  season 
when  armies,  under  their  respective  standards,  wer© 
led  forth  to  battle  ;  II  Sam.  xi.  I.  Jer.  1.  2  ;  or 
rather,  because  in  that  month  the  Lord  had  mai- 
g2 


104  SABBATH    DISCUSSIOjS-. 

slialled  Israel  under  the  directive  Cloud,  as  under 
his  banner.  Ex.  xiii.  21,  22.  To  tliis,  probably 
there  is  an  allusion  in  Cant.  ii.  4.  — 2.  That  on  the 
14th  day  of  tUis  memorable  month,  '■^at  even,  was  the 
Lord's  passover,''  the  time  when  he  He  mercifully 
passed  over  the  houses  of  the  Israelites,  but  destroyed 
the  first  born  in  every  house  of  the  Egyptians.  Ex. 
xii.  23.  Levit.  xxiii.  5.  Num.  xi.  1 — 5.  xviii.  16,] 
God,  when  he  instituted  this  ordinance,  required  the 
Israelites  to  observe  it,  in  the  first  instance,  as  a 
kind  o^  prelude  to  their  redemption  out  of  Egypt  ;  Ex. 
xii.  from  3  to  13,  and  from  21  to  23  :  and  ever  af- 
terward, at  the  same  time  annually  as  a  meinorial  of 
that  redemption  :  see  ver.  14th,  and  from  ver.  24th 
to  28th.  So  the  Lord's  Supper  ;  for  though  He  in- 
stituted it  before  He  wrought  the  great  redemption') 
His  disciples  are  required  constantly  and  often  to 
observe  it  in  memory  of  him,  as  tlie  author  of  their 
redemption.  Matt  xxvi.  2(j — 29,  and  I  Cor.  xi. 
23 — 26.  The  lambs  for  the  passover,  according  to 
the  Hebrew  of  Ex.  xii.  6,  were  to  be  killed  beticeen 
the  two  evenings,  by  which  are  meant  7ioon  and  sunset. 
See  Ling.  Sacra,  under  (»Sirt,  Be'h.)  Tlie  middle  hour 
between  these  two  evenings  is  about  3  o'clook,  P.'  M. 
the  very,  hour  at  which  Christ,  the  Antitype  of  those 
Iambs  yielded  up  the  ghost  ;  for,  counting  the  artificial 
day,  as  the  Jews  did,  from  6  in  the  morning  to  6  in  the 
evening,  the  ninth  hour  was  three  in  the  after- 
noon. Matt,  xxvii.  46 — 50. — 3.  That  the  day  af- 
ter the  passover,  the  15th  of  the  month,  was  i)iQ  first 
day  of  the  Feast  of  unleavened  bread,  which  lasted 
seven  days  ; — also  that,  of  these  seven  days,  ihe  first 
and  the  last  were  days  of  holy  convocation  ;  where- 
in the  Israelites  were  not  allowed  to  do  any  servile 
work,  save  what  every  man  needed  to  eat.  Exodus 
xii.    15,16.     Hence  each  of  these  holy  convocations, 


SABBATH    DISCUSSION.  105 

whatever  day  of  the  week  it  fell  on,  was  called  a  Sab- 
bath :  as  the  first  is  in  Levit.   xxm.   H.    lo.      ihis 
feast  also  the  Israelites  were  required  to  observe  an- 
nually in  remeinbrance  of  their  exit  from   Kgypt ; 
because  their  haste  was  such,  that  they  had   to  mke 
their  dough  imhavcned,   Ex.  xn.   17,34.-4.      ^  hat 
whereas  this  festival  lasted  seven  days,  it  necessarily 
included  a  weekly  or  seventh-day   Sabbath,   as  some 
one  of  its  davs— 1  say  some  one  of  its  days,   because 
the  15th  or21bt,  like  any  other  day  ot    that  or   any 
other  month,  would  not  always  fall  on  the   same  day 
of  the  the   week,  but  vary   annually.      H  itness  our 
memorable  4th  of  July.— 5.  Thatthe  Jews  were  re- 
ciuired  to  calculate  their  sabbaths,    both  festival  and 
weekly,   from    even  to   even.     Levit.   xxin.  32.  and 
Neh.    xili.    19.— G.     That   the  feast  of  unleavened 
brea'd,  though,  strickly  speaking,  it  began  on  the  15th, 
and  lasted  but  seven  days,   yet,  in  common  calcula- 
tion, included  also  the  14th,   and  then    consisted  ot 
eisht  davs.     The  reason  is,  that  on  the  14th  at  even, 
unleavened  bread  began  to  be  eaten   with  the    pass- 
over.     Ex     xii.    18.     Accordingly   JosErKUs    says, 
*' We  keep  a  feast  o^ eight  days,   which  is    called  the 
Feast  of  unleavened  bread.*'     Antiq.  Book  II.  Chap. 
XV  —7.     That  whereas  the  feast  of  unleavened  bread-, 
thus  calculated,  included  the  time  of  the  passover,  it 
sometimes  bore  its  name  :   "  The  feast  of  unleavened 

bxead which  is  called  the  passover."     Luke  xxm. 

1.  Comp.  iMark  xiv.  1.  Hence  it  was,  that  the  roy- 
al presents  for  this  solemn  occasion,  though  they 
consisted  not  only  of  lambs  or  kids,  taken  from  the 
f.ock,  for  the  paschal  supper,  but  also  of  oxen  (lytc. 
taken  from  the  herd,  and  used  as  sacrifices  on  succes- 
sive days  of  the  feast,  are  called  jiassover  offerings.-^ 
See  11  Chron.  xxxv.  7—9,  and  Comp.  Deut  xvi.  1. 
Nay  more  ;  as  on  the  evening  of  the  13th,  (when  the 


€1 


106  SAEBATH    DISCUSSION^. 

14th,  the  passover-day,  commenced,)  the  Jews  be- 
gan what  they  call  clia.  metz  badel,  that  is,  to  remove 
leaven,  so  even  the  13th  day,  came  to  be  called  (as 
in  Matt.  xxvi.  17;)  *'the  hrst  day  of  unleavened 
bread.**     Frey's  Essays  on  the  passover  ;  p.  18. 

Assisted  by  these  authenticated  facts,  we  know — 1. 
The  month  in  which  Christ  died  ;  it  was  the  same 
month,  by  annual  return,  in  which,  near  1500  years 
before,  Israel  was  redeemed  out  of  Egypt  :  namely, 
Abii  or  Niscm,  the  first  month  of  the  sacred  year  ; 
the  month  which,  in  our  calculation,  corresponds  to 
the  latter  part  of  March,  and  the  former  part  of 
April. — 2.  The  day  of  the  month  on  which  Christ 
died;  "it  was  the  preparation  of  the  Passover;'^ 
John  xix.  14  ;  not  the  preparation  for  the  Passover, 
as  if,  according  to  your  opinion,  it  had  been  a  day 
before  the  passover  ;  or,  according  to  the  more  gen- 
eral opinion,  the  day  following  the  passover  ;  which 
preparation  was  made  for  the  Chagigah,  the  feast  ; 
but  it  was  the  paraskeue  tou  pascha,  "the  preparation 
q/"  the  passover*'  itself;  which,  according  to  the  law, 
was  to  be  eaten  that  evening.  Hence  we  knov/  that 
it  was  not  the  13th,  nor  the  1.5th,  but  the  \Uh  of  the 
month  ;  the  day  of  the  Lord's  passover.  Levit.  xxiii. 
5.  But  there  was  another  preparation  on  the  same 
day,  in  the  afternoon,  and  by  which  we  know — 3. 
The  day  of  the  week  on  v/hich  Christ  died  ;  it  was 
the  preparation,  that  is,  (as  the  evangelist  explain* 
his  meaning)  "the  day  before  the  Sabbath,"  for 
which  preparation  must  be  made.  Mark  xv.  42. — 
You  gain  nothing,  my  dear  brother,  by  urging  as 
you  do,  that  the  day  foflowing  that  of  the  crucifixion 
was  the  first  of  the  two  holy  convocation-days,  or 
sabbaths,  appertaining  to  the  passover  week  ;  for  I 
believe  the  same  ;  yet,  knowing  that  the  week  under 
consideration,  like  every  other  week,    must   have  in- 


SABBATH    DISCUSSION. 


107 


eluded  a  weekly  Sabbath,  I  contend   that  the  festival 
Sabbath,  that  year,    fell  (as  it  must   have  done  once 
in  seven  vearsj  on  the  weekly  Sabbath.      Hence  that 
"Sabbath-day  was  an  high  day,''   having  the  sancti- 
ty not  onlv  oV  the  festival  Sabbath,  but  of  the   week- 
ly Sabbath   also  ;  and  requiring    a   preparation  for 
each  ;  for  though  on  the  festival  Sabbath,  ordinarily, 
so  much  mifiiht  be  done  as  to  cook  food  for    necessary- 
use  ;  Ex.   xii.  16  ;   yet  when  (as  at  that  that  time)  it 
fell  on  the  seventh-day    Sabbath,  the  superior  sancti- 
ty of  which  prohibited  even  the  kindling  tire  ;  as  well 
as  for  the  seventh-day  Sabbath,  on  which  it  fell,   had 
to  be  made  on  the  preceding  day.    This  also  accounts 
for  the  special  ado  among  the  Jews,  to  have  the  body 
of  Christ  and  those  of  the  two  crucified  with  him,  ta- 
ken down  from  the  tree   of  the  cross    before    sunset, 
when  both  these  sabbahts,  (measuring  from  that  exen 
to  the   next  even)    commenced  ;   nay,    the   disciples 
themselves,  and,  with  them,  Josei^h  and  NicJiodemus, 
not  only  from  fear  of  interruption  from  the  Jews,  but 
also  out  of  respect  for  the   Sabbath,  were  careful  to 
have  the  body'  of  Jesus  decently  interred  before  sun- 
set.    More  light  still  on  this  fact.     We  know  that  the 
observance  of  the  these  annual  festivals,  and    there- 
fore of  th 'iir  respective  sabbaths,  was  required  only  of 
males  ;   Deut.   xvi.  16.  ;  but  the  Sabbath  in  question, 
Jewish  females  felt  under  obligation  to  sanctify  ;  for 
those  holy  women,    who  had  witnessed  the  crucifix- 
ion  and  interment  of  their  blessed   Lord,   though,  m 
haste,    they    "prepared    spices    and   ointments"  to 
embalm  his   sacred  body,  yet  conscientiously  forbear- 
ing to  proceed  in  the  work,    rested  the  Sabbath    day 
acccrding  to    the   commandment ;    that    is,    the  com- 
mandment in  Ex.  XX.  8—11.  :  which  enjoined  the  ob- 
servance   of   the    seve..th.'-'aij   Sabbath,— a   Sabbath 
which  remained  in  force  till  the  resurrection  of  Christ. 


108  SABBATH     DISCUSSION. 

Therefore  when  Mark  calls  the  even  of  the  clay  on 
which  his  beloved  Master  was  crucified,  "  the  prepar- 
ation, that  is,  the  day  before  the  Sabbath,"  he  must 
have  meant  that  it  was  the  day  before  the  seventh-day 
Sabbath,  though  in  that  week,  it  was  also  the  day 
before  the  first  of  the  two  festivals  sabbaths  of  apper- 
taining to  the  feast  of  unleavened  bread,  sometimes 
called  the  passover.  For  this  we  have  the  testimony  of 
the  Jews  themselves  ;  who,  in  their  vile  book  called 
Toldos  Jesu,  (p.  18.)  says  of  Jesus,  that,  "He  was 
put  to  death  on  the  eve  both  of  the  passover  and  of  the 
Sabbath;"  meaning  on  the  eve,  the  afternoon,  of 
the  passover  day  ;  which  also  was  the  eve  of  the  Sab- 
bath ;  it  being  the  afternoon  when  preparation  was 
to  be  made  for  the  Sabbath,  In  regard  to  the  latter, 
they  speak  as  the  observers  of  Christmas  do,  when 
they  speak  of  Christmas-eve-,  by  v/hich  they  mean  the 
evening  before  Christmas.  Now,  all  these  circum- 
stances considered,  how  evidently  does  it  appear,  that 
the  day  on  which  Christ  died,  ('being,  as  Mark  says, 
*'the  day  before  the  Sabbath,'')  was  the  sixth  day  of 
the  week  commonly  called  Friday. 

Thus,  too,  it  is  manifest,  that  Christ  ate  his  last 
passover  with  his  disciples  a  day  sooner  than  the  le- 
gal time  ;  that  is,  on  the  even  of  the  13th,  when  the 
14th  day  had  begun,  and  not  on  the  even  o^  the  14th, 
when  the  15th  day  had  begun.  This  is  plain  from 
the  evangelic  narrative,  according  to  which  Christ, 
having  finished  the  passover,  and  instituted  His  own 
Supper,  went  imipediately  out,  and  entered  the  garden 
Qethsemane  ;  the  place  of  his  prayerful  agony  ;  on 
leaving  which,  he  was  presently  met  by  Judas^  (who 
betrayed  Him,)  leading  a  multitude,  among  whom 
were  the  officers,  sent  from  the  chief  priests  and  el- 
<fcrs  of  the  people,  who  (by  His  sufferance)  laid  hold 
on  Him  and  led  him   to  Caiaphas,   the    high   priest. 


SABBATH    DISCUSSION". 


109 


before  whom  He  was  condemned  and  abused  by  the 
Sanherdrim  ;  and  "when  the  morning  was  come,'' 
they  (having  spent  all  night  in  preparatory  measures) 
bound  Him,  and  delivered  Him  to  Pilate  the  Roman 
governor  ;  who,  (though  he  confessed  that  he  found 
no  fault  in  Him,)  to  gratify  the  Jews,  delivered  Him 
unto  them  to  be  crucihed  ;  and  it  ivas  the  preparation 
of  the  jJassover,  which  according  to  the  law,  was  to 
be  eaten  that  evening  ;  and  about  the  sixth  hour, 
twelve  o'clock  ;  when  only  three  hours  remained  till 
the  paschal  lambs  were  to  be  slain  in  the  temple,  and 
their  blood  sprinkled  on  the  altar,  that  they  might  bo 
flayed,  and  vicerated,  and  roasted,  in  time  for  the 
supper,  at  even.  John  xix.  14,  These  circumstan- 
ces v/ere  recorded,  that  it  might  appear  how  much 
the  Jews  neglected  the  stated  solemnities  of  that  day, 
to  prosecute  their  malicious  design  against  Christ. — 
And  that  this  was  the  fourteenth  day  of  the  month,  at 
the  even  of  which  was  the  Lora's  yassover,  is  further 
evident  from  the  care  taken  by  the  Jews  that  they 
might  not  be  ceremonially  defiled,  by  going  into  the 
Judgment  hall,  among  the  Roman  soldiers  and  other 
Gentiles,  "but  that  they  might  eat  the  passover;'^ 
not,  as  some  think,  the  chagigah,  the  great  feast  of 
the  15th  day,  but  the  passover  itself.  John  xviii.  28. 
That  Ciirist,  in  thus  anticipating  the  legal  time 
of  the  passover,  did  what  no  mere  man  had  a  right 
to  do,  is  admitted  ;  but  in  view  of  His  divinity,  eve- 
ry objection  vanishes.  By  His  divine  prescience,  He 
perfectly  knew,  that  on  the  next  day,  the  14th,  and 
at  the  very  hour  when  the  law  required  that  the  pas- 
chal lambs  should  be  dying  in  the  temple,  He,  as  the 
Antitype  of  them,  would  be  expiring  on  the  cross,. 
Nor  was  the  variation  from  the  legal  time  of  obser- 
ving the  passover  unprecedented.  In  the  days  of 
Moses,  provision  was  divinely  made,  that  those  who, 


110  SABBATH     DISCUSSION". 

on  the  14th  of  the  first  month,  the  legal  time  of  the 
passover,  were  either  ceremonially  unclean,  by  rea- 
son of  a  dead  hodij,  or  were  necessarily  journ3ying 
afar  off,  might  partake  of  it  on  the  14th  of  the  second 
month.  Num.  ix.  9 — 11.  So  the  passover  was  once 
observed  in  the  days  of  Hezekiah.  See  II  Chron. 
.txx.  1 — lo.  Why  then,  might  not  Christ,  who  knew 
that  He  was  to  die  on  the  14lhofthe  month,  observe 
the  passover  on  the  preceding  evening  ?  To  me, 
however,  a  stronger  reason  for  this  divuie  arrange- 
ment appears.  Christ  knew  that  in  Him  all  Mosaical 
institutions,  as  well  sacrificial  as  sabbatical,  were  to 
be  abolished  ;  and  therefore  might  choose,  by  an- 
ticipation, then  to  assert  His  Lordship  oxer  the  pass^ 
over  as  before  He  had  done  over  the  Sabbath.  See 
Matt.  xi.  8.  Mark  ii.  28.  To  the  Jev/s,  God  had 
said,  "Take  heed  to  yourselves,  and  bear  no  burden 
on  the  Sabbath-day."  Jer.  xvii.  21.  Yet,  on  a 
Sabbath-day,  Christ  said  to  a  helpless  paralytic, 
"Arise,  take  up  thy  bed,  and  go  unto  thy  house  ;'' 
and  the  man,  instantly  cured,  immediately  obeyed  ; 
*'he  arose  and  departed  to  his  house."  Matthew 
ix.  6.  7. 

The  design  of  this  divine  arangement  will  recur, 
when  I  shall  have  answered  another  objection.  Ac- 
cording to  II  Chron.  xxxv.  5,  6.  11,  the  paschal  lambs 
were  to  be  killed  in  the  temple,  and  their  blood  was 
to  be  sprinkled  by  the  priests.  Wherefore,  to  the 
opinion  that  Christ  observed  His  last  passover  with 
His  disciples,  a  day  before  the  legal  time,  it  is  object- 
ed that,  for  such  purpose,  the  use  of  the  temple  would 
not  theii  have  granted,  and  that  no  officiating  priest 
would  have  sprinkled  the  blood  of  a  paschal  lamb 
thus  illegally  killed.  But,  might  not  Christ,  who, 
at  the  time  of  a  former  passover,  claimed  authority 
over  the  temple,  have  claimed  the  like  authority  again'? 


SABBATH    DISCUSSION. 


Ill 


And  could  not  He  that  constrained  the  owners  of  a 
colt  to  let  it  go,  when  His  disciples,  obedient  to  His 
order,  said,  the  Lord  hath  need  of  him,  have  con- 
strained a  priest  to  perform  this  service  ?  See  John 
ii.  13 — 17,  and  Luke  xix.  29 — 34.  Nevertheless,  I 
am  much  inclined  to  believe,  that  our  Lord,  regard- 
less of  legal  ceremonies,  observed  that  passover  in 
conformity  to  its  original  simplicity  ;  when  there  was 
no  temple  nor  tahernacle,  nor  consecrated  priests  ; 
and,  therefore,  that  He  made  no  use  either  of  the 
Jewish  temple  or  of  the  Jewish  priesthood  ;  but,  as  a 
sign  that  He  rejected  both,  chose  a  common  ylace, 
wherein,  at  that  crisis.  He  caused  His  paschal  lamb 
to  be  killed  and  roasted  by  His  own  disciples,  as 
representing  the  whole  Church,  for  whose  sins  He 
was  about  to  be  crucified  and  exposed  to  the  lire  of 
incensed  justice.  With  E.xodus  xii.  6.  compare  Is. 
liii.  6— li.  Matt.  xx.  28.  1  Cor.  v.  7.  Gal.  i.  4.  Epk 
V.  25.  Hereby,  Christ  taught  his  disciples,  that,  for 
time  to  come,  they  were  not  required  to  attend  the 
services  of  the  Levitical  priests,  nor  to  observe  the 
Rites  of  the  Ceremonial  law. 

But  (resuming  the  design  of  this"  heavenly  ar- 
rangement) I  am  very  much  persuaded,  that  the  ab- 
rogation of  the  Mosaical  ceremonies,  sabbatical,  as 
well  as  sacrificial,  was  yet  further  indicated  at  that 
lime  ;  for,  considering  the  unparalleled  transactions 
of  the  next  day,  the  legal  day  of  the  passover,  and 
the  awful  day  of  the  crucifixion,  together  with  the 
terrible  scenes  then  exhibited, — such  as  the  preternat- 
ural eclipse,  which  lasted  from  the  sixth  to  the  ninth 
hour,  that  is,  from  12  to  3,  and  the  tremendous 
earthquake,  by  which  the  rocks  were  split — tho 
graves  opened,  and  the  vail  of  the  temple  rent  from 
top  to  bottom  ;  and  that  all  these  prodigies  occurred 
during  the  very  afternoon  when  the  lam.bs,  according 


112 


SABBATH    DISCUSSION. 


to  law,  Averc  to  have  been  collected  and  killed  in 
the  temple  and  their  blood  sprinkled  at  the  altar — 
considering  these  astounding  scenes,  I  say,  and  re- 
membering, withal,  how  much  the  attention  of  every 
order,  from  some  motive,  must  have  been  attracted 
to  Calvary,  it  seems  to  me  wholly  improbable,  that 
the  Jews  ob.served  the  paschal  supper  that  evening  at 
all.  What  priest  could  have  officiated  in  the  trem- 
bling temple  ?  Nay,  what  family,  under  such  circum- 
stances, could  have  been  sufficiently  composed  to 
observe  the  paschal  solemnity  ?  Nor  was  the  sup- 
posed interruption  any  more  than  a  pledge  of  the  fur- 
ther fulfilment  of  prophecy,  by  which  that  people, 
for  having  ascribed  their  civil  prosperity  to  idols,  and 
turned  their  religious  solemnities  into  seasons  of  car- 
nal hilarity,  were  threatened  to  be  deprived  of  both  ; 
as  the  finally  were  by  the  Romans  ;  whereupon,  the 
Gospel  Church,  which  originated  in  Judea  and  first 
consisted  of  Jews,  was  allured  into  the  wilderness  o^ 
the  Gentile  world,  ivhence^  according  to  prophecy, 
she  has,  ever  since  been  receiving  her  vineyards,  her 
particular  branches.  See  Hosea  ii.  11 — 17,  and  com- 
pare Matt.  xxi.  48,  and  Col.  ii.  16,  17. 

To  return.  That  Christ  observed  his  last  passo- 
ver  with  his  disciples  a  day  before  the  legal  time,  is, 
I  am  avv^are,  subject  to  another,  and,  in  my  opinion, 
a  much  more  plausible  objection,  than  either  of  the 
two  noticed.  \t  is  founded  on  ihe  testimony  of  two 
evangelists,  generall}-  understood  to  mean  that  Christ 
gave  directions  to  his  disciples  to  prepare  for  eating 
the  pasaover  on  the  same  day  on  which  the  nation  ob- 
served it  ;  to  wit,  on  the  fGurt e enth  d^y  of  the  first 
month  at  even.  The  words  alluded  to,  are  those  of 
Mark  xiv.  12.  and  Luke  xxii.  7.  Mark  says, — "the 
first  day  of  unleavened  bread,  vvhen  theif  (common- 
ly understood  of  the  Jews)  "killed  the   passover,  hia 


SABBATH    DISCUSSIOV.  113 

disciples  said  to  hini,  Where  wilt  thou  that  we  go  and 
prepare,  that  thou  mayest  eat  the  passover  V  And 
Luke  says,  "Then  caiTse  the  day  of  unleavened  bread, 
when  tlie  passover  ?nust  be  killed  ;''  that  is,  according 
to  law  and  national  usage,  as  currently  interpreted. 
The  day,  however,  on  which  the  disciples  made  this 
inquiry  of  their  Pv'Iaster  and  received  his  reply,  could 
not  have  been  the  14th  of  the  month,  the  day  of  the 
passover;  for  that,  as  already  shov/n,  proved  to  be 
the  da}^  of  the  crucifixion  ;  but  it  must  have  been  the 
13th,  v/hich  was  the  ^fijlh  day  of  the  week,  common- 
ly called  Thursday.  To  establish  this,  and  thereby 
to  remove  the  obstacle  and  to  ansvver  the  objection,  I 
refer  the  reader  to  the  revealed  facts  stated  in  the 
former  part  of  this  Letter,  especially  to  Nos.  3,  6 
and  7,  Therein  it  will  be  found,  that  although  the 
feast  of  unleavened  bread  was  on  the  15th,  yet  that 
unleavened  bread  began  to  be  eaten  v/ith  the  jjass' 
over  in  the  even  of  the  14th,  which  therefore  was 
numbered  v/ith  the  days  of  that  feast,  making  it  a 
feast  of  eight  days  ;  also,  that  whereas,  preparatory 
to  the  passover,  the  Jews  began  Chamelz  ladel,  *'to 
remove  leaven,"  on  the  evening  of  the  13th,  when 
the  14th  com.mencde,  so  even  the  13Lh  came  to  be 
styled  the  first  day  of  unleavened  bread.  Besides, 
as  neither  of  the  evangelists,  in  stating  the  above  in- 
terviev/  which  took  place  between  Christ  and  his  dis- 
ciples on  the  said  first  day  of  unleavened  bread,  has 
specified  l\\e  time  of  the  day  v/hen  that  interview 
occurred,  I  am  at  liberty  to  suppose  (as  I  believe) 
that  it  was  in  the  latter  part  of  the  day,  when  the 
first  evening,  (beginning  at  12  and  ending  at  3,) 
was  past,  and  when  the  other  evening,  (beginning 
at  3  and  ending  at  6,  or  about  sunset)  was  consider- 
ably advanced.     See  No.  2  of  the  facts  before  refer- 


X14i  SABBATH     DISCUSSION. 

fed  to.     The  objection,    then,   may    be   answered  iR 
either  of  two  ways. 

1.  By  observing  that  M«r A:  and  Luke  speaking  on 
the  13th,  (Tliursday)  might  fitly  mention  the  next 
day,  the  14th  (the  day  on  which  annually  tJiei/  tho 
Jews,  killed  the  passover,  and  ivhenj  according  to  law 
♦*the  passovcr  viust  be  killed'^)  as  being  come  ;  be- 
cause no  other  day  would  intervene  ;  it  would  com- 
mence at  the  then  approaching  sunset  ;  and  there- 
fore, v/as  emphatically  7iear  at  hand.  In  the  same 
sense  Christ  himself,  on  the  said  Thursday,  when 
speaking  of  his  death,  though  he  hiew  it  would  not 
occur  till  the  next  day,  the  14th,  the  day  that  would 
begin  that  evening,  and  that  it  would  not  occur  till  at 
the  ninth  hour  of  the  day,  3  o'clock,  P.  M.,  tho 
fixed  hour  of  the  paschal  sacrifice,  yet  said  My  time 
is  at   hand.     Matt.  xxvi.   18.    Comp.    John   xiiL    1. 

2.  As  each  evangelist,  in  his  chapter  refered  to, 
gives  a  narrative  of  events  wholly  relating  to  Christ 
and  his  disciple,  (interrupted  only  by  a  brief  notice  of 
Judas's  traitorous  bargain  with  the  chief  priests,)  1 
can  see  no  substantial  reason  w'ay  each  might  not 
mean  the  very  day  within  which  he  was  speaking, 
to  wit,  Thursday,  the  13th;  for,  though  it  was  tho 
day  before  the  legal  time  of  the  passover,  it  was  the 
day,  at*thc  even  of  v/hich  Christ,  for  the  last  time, 
would  observe  that  ordinance  with  his  disciples  ;  and 
therefore  the  day  on  which,  at  that  ever  memorial 
juncture,  thei/  the  Christians,  (the  disciples  by  the 
master's  order)  killed  the  passover,  and  when  (for 
their  use  at  that  crisis)  there  was  a  imist  be, — "tho 
passover  77iust  be  killed."  Agreeably  to  this  inter- 
pretation of  the  words,  Christ,  when  he  said.  My 
time  is  at  haiid,  m.ight  respect,  not  only  tlie  time  of 
His  death,  next  day, but  also  tho  time  of  His  anticipa- 


SABBATH     DISCUSSION.  115 

ted  passover,  that  very  evening.  Whoever  shall  lead 
Matt.  xx\i.  Mark  xiv.  and  Luke  xxii.,  v/ith  care  and 
candor,  will,  I  think,  be  satisfied  with  one  or  the 
other  of  these  v/ays  of  solving  the  difficulty,  and  aa- 
sv/ering  the  objection  founded  opon  it. 

I  proceed.     Having  proved  that  v/hen  Mark,  speak- 
ing of  the  even  of  the  da,y  on  which  his  blessed  Lord 
was  crucified,  called  it  "//ie  preparcUioHy  that  is,  the 
day  before  the  Sahhath,^''  he  must  have  meant    that  it 
was  the  even  of  the  day  before  the  weekly,  as  well  as 
of  the  day  before  the  festival  sabbath,   and,    there- 
fore, that  it  was  the  even  of  the  sixth  day  of  the  v/eek, 
commonly  called  Friday — having  I  say,  proved  this, 
I  shall  find  no  difliculty  in  proving,  that  the   day  on 
which  Christ  rose  from  the  dead,  was  the  first  day  of 
the  week  commonly  called  Sunday.     That  ho  would 
rise  on  the  third  day,  he   had  often  foretold,    [Matt. 
xvi,  21.  xvii.  23.  xx.  19.  Mark  viii.  SI.  x-    34.    Luk@ 
ix.  22.  xviii.  33.  John  ii.   19.]     This  his  enemies  re- 
membered,   while   he  lay   in  the   sepulchre.     Matt. 
xxvii.  62,  63.     And  that   he   did    rise    on   the  third 
day  according  to  the  Scriptures  referred   to,  is    posi- 
tively asserted.       See  I  Cor.    xv.  4  ;  also  the    con- 
versation between  Christ  and  the  disciples,  to    v/honfi 
he  appeared  on  the  day  of  his  resurrection,  as   they 
were  going  to  Emmaus.  Luke  xxiv.  13 — 24   particu- 
larly ver.  21,  22,  23,  24.      But  since,  as  already  pro- 
ved. He  was  crucified  on  Friday,  "the  day  before  tha 
Sabbath,''  and  rose  on  the  third    day,  by    including- 
"both  these  days  with  the  intermediate  Sabbath  Day,, 
during  which  ho  lay  in  the  sepulchre,   any  one  may 
perceive  that  the  day  on  which  He  rose  was  the  firsi 
day  of  the  week.      And  so  say  all  the    four  evangel- 
ists.  See  Matt,  xxxiii.  1.  Mark  xvi.  2.  9.    Luke  xxiv. 
1,  6,  7.  John  XX.  1.      The  seeming  difference  in  their 
narrations  of  the  event,  aa  they   have    been  bappilj 


116  SABBATH    DISCUSSION. 

reconciled  by  several  commentators,  I  pass  without 
criticism  or  specification.  All  wiio  candidly  inquire 
how  Christ,  according  to  Matt.  xii.  40,  was  '•Hhree 
days  and  ^Aree  nights  in  the  heart  of  the  earth, ^'  that 
is,  under  its  surface,  are  referred,  with  confidence, 
to  my  first  letter  to  you,  for  the  true  solution  of  the 
diiiiculty. 

The  Sabbatarian  objection  that  each  of  the  evan- 
gelist, in  noting  the  time  of  Christ's  resurrection, 
omits  the  v/ord  day^  is  almost  too  puerile  to  merit  no- 
tice. Nevertheless,  as  some  of  the  illiterate  are  im- 
posed on  by  it,  I  will  briefly  show  its  futility.  Even 
a  Tyro  in  the  sacred  originals  knov/s  that  they  abound 
with  elipses,  Nay,  the  mere  English  reader,  by  the 
help  of  our  translation,  is  enabled  to  judge  of  this 
matter  ;  for  though  the  translators  often  found  it 
necessary  to  supply  a  word  or  phrase,  by  way  of  ex- 
planation, they  always  distinguish  such  word  or 
phrase,  by  directing  it  to  be  printed  in  italic  letters. 
Recollecting  this,  any  reader  of  the  Bible  will  per- 
ceive that  the  inspired  writers  were  much  wont  to  omit 
the  word  day  ;  as  any  day  noted  by  its  ordinal  num- 
ber in  the  month,  or  week,  or  festival  to  which  it 
belonged  ;  especially  any  day  of  a  festival,  which, 
like  a  week,  consisted  of  a  fixed  num.ber  of  days. 
To  make  the  matter  plain  even  to  children,  I  will 
give  a  few  instances,  including  the  supply  in  a  pa- 
renthesis. "In  the  fourteenth  (day)  of  the  first 
month.' ^  Levit,  xxiii.  5  ; — ''in  the  first  (day)  of  the 
month,^'  ver.  24  ; — "on  the  tenth  (day)  of  this  sev- 
enth month,"  ver.  27  ;— "in  the  ninth  (day)  of  the 
month  at  even,*'  ver,  32.  "On  the  first  (day)  of  the 
second  month.''  Num.  i  1.  18.  "On  the  twentieth 
(day)  of  the  second  month."  Num.  x.  11.  "Upon 
the  first  (day)  of  the  first  month— on  the  first  (day) 
of  the  fifth  month."     Ezra    vii.    9.      Sometimes    the 


SABBATH      DISCUSSION.  117 

word  month  is  omitted,  as,  for  instance,  in  Ex.  xii, 
18.  In  Ezek.  xlv.  18.  both  month  and  day  are  omit- 
ted :  "In  the  first  (month)  in  the  first  (day)  of  the 
month,''  &;c.  But,  among  New-Testament  instan- 
ces, there  is  one  remarkably  analogous  to  that  in 
question  :  *'The  first  (day)  of  the  (feast  of)  un- 
leavened bread,"  &c.  Matt.  xxvi.  17.  See  also  John 
vii.  37  :  "In  the  last  day,  that  great  fday)  of  the 
feast.''  '     ^ 

These  omissions,  too,  of  the  words  day  and  month 
will  appear  the  more  in  point,  when  it  is  observed 
that  where  events  are  noted,  the  times  of  which 
could  not  be  known  by  any  weekly  or  festival  cal- 
culations, the  word  day  or  month,  as  the  occasion 
required,  is  usually  in  the  original.  Among  numer- 
ous places,  see  Num.  iii.  15.  Deut.  xxi.  13.  Ezra  x. 
16,  17.  Acts  XX.  18.  Philip  i,  5.  Besides,  the  rea- 
son for  the  omission  of  the  word  day  in  the  evangel- 
ic records  of  our  Lord's  resurrection,  is,  if  possible 
more  evident  than  in  any  of  the  instances  above 
given  ;  for  each  evangelist  having  just  spoken  of 
the  Sabbath,  which  every  reader  knows  was  the  last 
day  of  the  week,  sufficiently  noted  the  next  day  by 
calling  it,  as  each  of  them  does,  "the  first  of  the 
week."  To  suppose  that  you  can  have  a  serioug 
doubt  whether  the  first  day  of  the  week  be  meant, 
would  be  to  degrade  your  understanding. 

Sabbatarian  writers,  however  demanded  by  what 
authority  we  neglect  the  seventh,  and  observe  the 
first  day  of  the  week  1  My  reply,  with  some  im- 
provement of  the  subject,  I  must  reserve  for  anoth- 
er letter. 

Yours  in  cordial  friendship, 

WM.  PARKINSON. 


LETTER  XII. 


To  THE  Rev.  Wm.  Maxson. 

^eiptemher^  1835.. 

Dear  Sir, — Sabbatarian  writers,  as  noticed  at  tl>e 
close  of  my  last  letter,  demand  of  us,  by  what  au- 
thority we  neglect  the  seventh  and  observe  the  jirst 
day  of  the  week.      My  reply  follows  : 

The  seventh  day  Sabbath,  as  specified  by  the  man- 
na, and  recognized  by  the  fourth  commandment,  was 
as  I  have  already  shown,  peculiar  to  national  Israel. 
Its  observance  was  never  required  of  the  Gentiles  ; 
and,  like,  every  other  institution  peculiar  to  the  Jews, 
it  expired  with  the  Mosaic  dispensation,  which  was 
virtually  abolished  in  the  death  of  Christ.  Eph.  ii. 
15.  Accordingly,  even  Jews,  on  their  believing  in 
Christ,  are  declared  to  be  dead  to  the  law  ;  that  is,  to 
the  legal  dispensation,  and  consequently  to  the  obli- 
gation of  observing  its  institutions.  Sec  Rom.  vii. 
1 — 4.  Why,  then,  should  any  labor  to  bring  Gentile 
disciples  under  the  legal  yoke  ?  But,  say  you,  the 
Sabbath  was  before  the  law — it  was  patriarchal  as 
well  as  Mosaical :  granted  ;  but  so  was  circumcision 
for  though'Moses,  by  divine  direction,  gave  it  to  Is- 
rael, it  was  not  of  him,  but  of  the  fathers  ;  it  did  not 
originate  under  his  ministry,  but  had  accompanied  the 
A.brahamic  covenant,    and   served  to  distinguish  tha 


SABBATH    DISCUSSION.  119 

ancestry  of  the  Messiah,  as  the  ceremonial  law  did 
to  prefigure  his  attonement.  See  John  vii.  22  ;  Rom. 
ix.  4,  5  ;  Heb.  x.  1 — 14.  Nevertheless,  an  attempt 
to  impose  circumcision  on  believers  in  Christ,  un- 
der the  Gospel,  was  regarded  by  the  apostle  as  an 
attempt  to  put  a  legal  yoke  upon  them,  and  thereby 
to  make  them  debtors  to  do  the  lohole  law.  Gal.  v. 
3.  Read  Acts  xv.  and  Gal.  iv.  And  in  the  same 
light,  He  regarded  the  conduct  of  those  who  presum- 
ed to  judge  Christians,  by  their  observance  or  neg^ 
lect  of  Mosaical  institutions,  whether  ritual  or  sabbat- 
ical. Col.  ii.  16.  17.  Hence  it  is,  that  we  do  not 
observe  the  seventh-day  Sabbath. 

Nor  do  we,  like  many,  observe  the  first  day  of  the 
week,  as  a  substitute  for  the  seventh  ; — that  is,  for 
the  Jewish  Sabbath,  any  more  than  we  observe  bap- 
tism as  a  substitute  for  circumcision  ;  or  the  Lord's 
Supper  as  a  substitute  for  the  Passover — for  we  be- 
lieve that  every  shadow  implied  and  respected  a  sub- 
stance, and  not  another  shadow.  Thus  circumcision, 
while  it  served  to  distinguish  the  natural  posterity  of 
Abraham,  till  the  coming  of  Christ  in  the  flesh,  it  al- 
so respected  regeneration,  whereby  the  spiritual  seed 
of  Abraham  had  been,  and  would  be  distinguished 
till  the  second  coming  of  Christ.  Circumcision  now 
is  that  of  the  heart ;  Rom.  ii.  28,  29  ;  Comp.  Deut. 
XXX.  6.  Again  :  We  are  the  circumcision,  which 
worship  God  in  the  Spirit,  and  rejoice  iri  Christ  Je- 
sus, and  have  no  confidence  in  the  flesh.  Philip  iii.  3 
And  if  ye  be  Christ's,  then  are  ye  Abraham^ s  seed, 
and  heirs  according  to  the  promise.  Gal.  iii.  29. 
Comp.  Rom,  iv.  9 — 14.  v.  i.  2.  Gal  iii.  14 — 28. — 
The  same,  too,  may  be  said  of  the  Passover  The 
Lord's  Supper,  indeed,  with  regard  to  the  time  and 
ends  of  its  institution,  as  noticed  in  a  former  letter, 
greatly  resembles  the  passover  ;  yet  the  Lord's  Sup- 
h2 


120  SABBATH    DISCUSSION. 

per  is  not  the  antitype  of  the  passover  ;  for  the  pass- 
over,  while  it  commemorated  Israel's  redemption  out 
ot*  Egypt,  typified  not  the  Lord's  Supper,  but  the 
LiorcVs  sacrifice  ;  "for  even  Christ  our  Passover  is 
saciificed  for  us  ''  I  Cor.  v.  7.  And  in  a  similar 
manner,  we  should  contemplate  the  Sabbath,  both 
patriarchal  and  Mosaical.  The  former,  while  it 
served  to  commemorate  God's  rest  from  creative  op- 
erations, might  intimate  also  the  rest  which  he  would 
thereafter  give  to  a  peculiar  people  ;  to  wit,  nation- 
al Israel,  in  their  release  from  Egypt  ;  and  the  latter, 
while,  in  like  manner,  it  reminded  Israel  of  God's 
rest,  and  of  their  own  rest  from  the  Egyptian  yoke, 
served  as  a  pledge  of  their  promised  rest  in  Canaan, 
and  as  a  type,  not  of  any  natural  day  of  literal  rest, 
but  of  the  Gospel  day  of  gracious  rest  to  the  Church, 
from  the  bondage  and  toils  of  the  legal  dispensation  ; 
— nay,  more,  the  Sabbath,  from  the  beginning,  might 
be  designed  as  a  symbol  and  memento  of  that  rest, 
both  gracious  on  earth,  and  glorious  in  Heaven,  which 
remaineth  for  the  people  of  God.  See  Heb.  iv.  3 — 9. 
Besides,  as  we  do  not  observe  baptism  in  obedience 
to  any  command  given  for  the  observance  of  circum- 
cision— nor  the  Lord's  Supper,  in  obedience  to  any 
command  given  for  the  observance  of  the  passover  ; 
so  neither  do  we  observe  the  first  day  of  the  week  in 
obedience  to  any  command  or  injunction  given  for  the 
observance  of  the  Mosaical  Sabbath  ;  the  observance 
o'l  i\\Q  first  day  of  the  week  being  as  peculiar  to  the 
Christian  dispensation,  as  the  observance  of  the  Mo- 
saical Sabbath  was  to  the  legal  dispensation.  Never- 
theless, we  observe  the  first  day  by  an  authority  pre- 
cisely tantamount  to  that  by  which  the  patriarchs, 
from  Adam  to  MoseSy  observed  the  seventh  day;  to 
wit,  not  by  divine  commandment,  but  by  divine  exam- 
ple,    For,  as  God  ("Elohim,  denoting  a  plurahty  in 


SABBATH    DISCUSSION.  121 

Unity  ;  Gen.  i.  1,  compared  with  Deut.  vi.  4,  and 
John  V.  7,)  having,  as  Creator,  finished  his  work 
on  the  sixth  day,  rested  on  the  seventh :  so.  He  Lo- 
gos, the  Word,  who  was  Gud,  and  without  whom 
*' was  not  any  thing  made  that  was  made,  ( Jolm  i. 
1 — 3)  having,  as  Mediator,  Jinished  his  work  of 
atonement  in  his  death  on  the  cross  (John  xix.  30.) 
thereupon  rested  forever  from  any  repetition  of  such 
vicarious  work.  Rom.  vi.  9  ;  Heb.  x.  12.  His  hu- 
man s©ul,  which  had  been  exceeding  sorroicful,  rest- 
ed immediately  in  the  heavenly  jmradise ;  Luke 
xxiii.  43  ;  and  his  natural  body,  which  had  agoniz- 
ed on  the  cross,  presently  rested  in  the  tomb.  And 
having  received  these,  as  reunited  on  the  third  day, 
and  having,  during  "forty  days,-'  given  "many  infal 
lible  proofs''  of  his  resurrection,  when  he  hadauthoriz 
ed  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel  to  all  nations.  He,  in 
human  nature,  and  in  view  of  his  gazing  disciples,  as- 
cended on  high,  and  entered  into  his  Mediatorial 
Rest,  even  that  glory,  which,  by  covenant  grant,  he 
had  with  the  Father  before  the  world  was.  See  Acts 
£.  2 — 11;  Luke  xxiv.   50 — 52;  John  xvii.   4,5= 

That  the  rest  entered  into  by  the  divine  Logos,  on 
having  finished  the  works  appropriate  to  His  state  of 
humiliation,  corresponded  to,  and  respected  that  rest 
into  which  the  divine  Elohim  had  entered  on  having 
finished  the  works  of  creation,  is  expressly  noted  by 
an  apostle  : — "He  that  is  entered  into  his  rest.  He 
also  hath  ceased  from  his  own  works,  as  God  did  from 
His."  Heb.  iv.  10.  It  is  true,  indeed,  that  all  who 
rightly  enter  into  rest  by  faith  in  Christ,  cease  from 
their  own  works,  as  no  longer  seeking  to  be  justified 
by  them,  and  that  all  who  enter  into  the  heavenly 
rest,  cease  from  their  oicmvorks  o^  present  "labor  and 
sorrow  ; "  yet,  as  only  one  person  is  here  meant,  (not 
many,  as  in  verse  3  ;)  and  as  this  person  is  said  to 


122  SABBATH    DISCUSSION. 

enter  into  his  rest,  that  which  belonged  to  Him  of 
right — nay,  to  have  ceased  from  His  own  works^- 
works  pecuHar  to  Himself,  there  seems  to  be  a  special 
propriety  i"  undei-standrng  the  words,  as  spoken  of 
Christ,  who,  in  His  death  on  the  cross,  Jinished  His 
vicarious  atonement,  and  thereupon,  ceased  from  His 
own  works,  not  only  from  traveling,  and  preaching, 
and  performing  miracles,  but  also  from  His  works  of 
official  obedience  and  sacrifice,  done  as  the  Substi- 
tute of  all  He  represented.  To  this  effect  the  words 
in  question  were  interpreted  by  Dr.  Gill.  And,  so 
understood,  this  apostolic  assertion  shows  the  safety 
of  all  true  believers  in  Christ  ;  for,  as  He,  having 
finished  His  works  of  vicarious  obedience,  both  active 
and  passive,  hath  as  a  matter  of  right,  entered  into  His 
glorious  rest,  "as  the  Fore-runner  for  us,''  we  have 
boldness,  (an  authorized  freedom  or  liberty,)  to  enter 
into  the  holiest,  that  is,  into  the  presence  of  God  him- 
self, the  holiest  of  all :  (having  liberty  of  access  to 
His  gracious  presence  on  earth,  and  to  His  glorious 
presence  in  Heaven  ;)  by  the  blood  of  Jesus,  by  a  new 
and  living  way,  lohich  he  hath  consecrated  for  us, 
through  the  veil,  that  is  to  say,  lis  flesh.  Heb.  x.  19. 
20.  Comp.  chap.  vi.  17 — 20.  I  return  to  Heb. 
ivth.  Herein  the  apostle  having  shown  that  every  rest 
spoken  of  in  the  Old  Testament,  had  respect  to  the 
true  rest  by  faith  in  Christ,  and  to  the  everlasting  rest 
of  the  saints  in  heaven,  fairly  infers,  (vef.  9.)  that 
there  remaineth  a  rest,  *'  both  gracious  and  glorious, 
"for  the  people  of  God  ;*'  and  asserts,  (ver.  10)  that 
Christ  with  whom  they  are  joint-heirs,  hath  entered 
into  this  rest,  thereby  securing  to  all  true  believers  an 
entrance  into  rest  Avith  Him.  Hence  the  exhortation, 
which  follows  in  verse  11  :  "Let  us  labor  therefore," 
(by  resisting  sin,  renouncing  legality,  and  praying  for 
faith,)  "to  enter  into  that  rest,  lest  any  man,"  (among 


SABBATH    DISCUSSION.  123 

those  Jews  who  professed  to  receive  the  Gospel,)  by 
returning  to  Judaism,  or  to  a  course  of  sin,  "fall  af- 
ter the  same  example  of  unbelief,-'  or  disobedience, 
exhibited  in  the  sad  fate  of  their  unbelieving  and  diso- 
bedient ancestors.  Moreover,  that  the  apostle,  in  verse 
10,  speaks  of  Christ,  is  the  more  evident,  in  that 
he  continues  to  speak  of  Him  lo  the  end  of  the  chap- 
ter. 

The  scope,  in  fact,  of  all  things  appertaining  to  the 
legal  dispensation,  was  to  prefigure  the  incarnation, 
obedience,  and  sacrifice,  of  the  promised  seed.  Of 
this,  however,  the  unbelieving  Jews  were  ignorant  ; 
and  hence  "could  not  steadfastly  look  to  the  end  of 
that  which  is  abolished  ;  to  wit,  the  legal  dispensa- 
tion, the  end,  the  fulfilling  end  of  which  is  Christ,  in 
whom  that  shadoio  was  realized  and  done  aioay.  II 
Cor.  iii.  13,14.  Nay,  even  some  of  those  Jews  who 
professed  to  be  converted  to  the  faith  of  the  Gospel, 
remained  much  entangled  with  Judaism,  and,  by 
their  example  and  infinence,  brought  some  of  the 
Gentile  converts  to  feel  the  same  perplexity  ;  in  so 
much,  that  both  were  greatly  distressed  by  the  judg- 
ment which  Judaizing  teachers  constantly  passed  up- 
on them.  Accordingly,  the  apostle,  addressing  Chris- 
tians so  troubled,  dissuaded  from  admitting  the  author- 
ity of  any  such  opinions  or  decisions  respecting  them  ; 
saying,  "Let  no  man — judge  you  in  jneat  or  in  drink,^^ 
such  as  was  either  prohibited  or  enjoined  by  the  cere- 
monial law — "Or  in  respect  of  an  hohj  day,^'  for  not 
observing  it  ;  seeing  that  whatever  Jewish  festival  it 
might  be,  the  Gentiles  never  were  bound  to  observe 
it,  and  that,  whereas  the  Mosaic  dispensation  (to 
which  it  belonged)  was  abolished,  even  Jews,  be- 
lieving in  Christ,  were  delivered  from  its  obligation  ; 
— "or  of  the  new  moon,"'  the  festivals  of  which  we'i-e 
no    longer    required    to   be   observed — "Or    of  the 


124  SABBATH    DISCUSSION. 

ga§§aTwv,  the  sabbaths,  all  times  and  days  so  de- 
nominated under  the  legal  dispensation  ;  as  the  Jubi- 
lee Sabbath,  the  seventh-year  Sabbath,  the  sabbaths 
of  their  annual  festivals,  and  the  weekly  seventh-day 
Sabbath  ;  all  ivhich  Mosaical  institutions  and  obser- 
vances, *'are,''  (continued  the  apostle)  *' a  shadow 
of  things  to  come  :  but  the  body  is  of  Christ.^'  Col. 
ii.   16,  17. 

Nevertheless,  as  the  seventh-day  Sabbath,  from 
the  beginning  of  the  world,  had  been  a  memorial  of 
Creation — and,  from  the  giving  of  the  law,  a  memori- 
al also  of  Israel's  release  from  Egyptian  bondage  ; 
so  it  was  pre-eminently  fit  and  requisite,  that,  during 
the  evangelical  reign  of  Christ,  (who,  with  the  Fath- 
er and  the  Spirit,  is  both  the  creator  of  the  world 
and  the  saviour  of  the  Church,)  some  appropriate 
day  should  be  weekl}'-  observed,  as  a  memorial  both 
o(  creation  and  of  redemption.  But  what  day  of  the 
week  could  so  fitly  answer  this  two-fold  end  as  the 
First  ?—lt  having,  been  as  already  shown,  the  day  on 
which  Elohim,  the  Triune  Creator,  preparatory  to 
formation,  spake  the  substance  of  all  things  out  of 
nothing,  and  the  day  on  which  the  Redeemer,  the 
Logos  incarnate,  "having  put  away  sin  by  the  sacri- 
fice of  himself,''  was  raised  and  discharged,  prepar- 
atory to  the  effectual  calling,  justification  and  glori- 
fication of  His  redeemed.  See  Rom.  iv.  25,  and  viii. 
30 — 34.  Accordingly,  as  "God  rested  on  the  sev- 
enth day  from  all  his  work  which  he  had  made,"  and, 
moreover,  "blessed  the  seventh  day  and  sanctified 
it ;"  thereby  suggesting  it  to  be  his  will,  that  man 
should  finish  his  week's  labor  with  the  sixth  day,  and 
spend  the  seventh  in  holy  contemplation  and  other 
acta  of  devotion  ;  so  Christ,  having  on  the  sixth  day 
(Friday)  finished  his  work  of  redemption  on  the  cross, 
and  rested  on  the  seventh  day  in  the  to7nb,  "blessed  " 


SABBATH     DISCUSSION.  125 

the  First  day,  that  is,  honored  it  by  his  victorious 
resurrection,  wherein  the  acceptances  of  his  vicarious 
sacrifice  was  openly  dcchired,  "and  sanctified  it,^^ 
to  devotional  purposes,  by  vouchsafing  his  visible 
presence  amid  his  assembled  disciples,  and  b}-  pub- 
lishing to  them  the  result  of  his  death  ;  for  "  having 
made  peace  through  the  blood  of  His  cross,''  He  came, 
and  saith  unto  them,  Peace  be  unto  you.  John  xx. 
19.  "  And  after  eight  days,"  (including  the  six  in- 
tervening days,)  that  First  day  and  the  7iext,  on 
which  the  disciples  again  assembled.  He  repeated  the 
favor.  "  Then,  came  Jesus,  the  doors  being  shut," 
as  before,  "and  stood  in  the  midst,  and  said,  Peace 
he  unto  you.^^  Verse  26.  And,  that  His  disciples 
hereby  understood  it  to  be  His  will  that  they  should 
weekly  assemble  on  the  day  of  His  resurrection,  for 
devotional  purposes,  is  evident  ;  for  we  know,  that 
near  thirty  years  afterward,  it  was  their  constant 
usage  to  meet  on  that  day  ;  and  even  at  places  dis- 
tant from  Jerusalem,  where  the  example  was  set ;  as, 
for  instance,  at  Troas,  and  at  Corinth.  See  Acts 
XX.  7.  and  I  Cor.   xvi.  2. 

Nor  does  it  appear,  that  Christ,  after  His  resur- 
rection, ever  held  a  meeting  w^ith  his  disciples,  or 
that  his  disciples  at^ter  that  event,  ever  held  a  meet- 
ing among  themselves,  to  sanctify  the  seventh  day  as 
a  Sabbath.  Still,  as  the  unconverted  Jews  contin- 
ued to  meet  on  the  seventh  day,  the  apostles,  on  that 
day,  were  careful  to  go  into  their  synagogues,  to 
preach  Christ  to  them.  Acts  ix.  20.  xiii.  5.  14 — 41. 
■xviii.  4.  For  the  same  purpose  our  eastern  mission- 
aries, on  the  ivorship  days  of  the  heathen,  go  into 
their  Pagodas  ;  and,  as  the  native  converts  accompa- 
ny their  missionaries  on  those  days  to  hear  them 
preach  ;  so  the  Jewish  converts  accompanied  ^  the 
apostles,  to  share  in  the  benefit  of  their  ministrations. 


126  SABBATH     DISCUSSION. 

This,  in  both  cases,  deserves  commendation  ;  but,  as 
persisted  in  without  the  above  inducements,  it  is  cen- 
surable. Accordingly,  when  the  early  converts  to 
Christianity,  whether  from  Jews  or  Gentiles,  mani- 
fested that  they  felt  either  an  obligation,  or  an  in- 
clination, to  observe  any  of  the  ordinances  of  those 
from  among  whom  they  had  been  called,  they  were 
reproved  for  it  and  dissuaded  from  it.  See  Gal.  iv. 
1 — 12.  and  Col.  ii.  18 — 23.  The  prejudices  of  edu- 
cation are  very  strong.  Hence  even  some  of  those 
Jews  who  were  renewed  by  grace,  having  been  ac- 
customsd  from  childhood  to  a  strict  observance  of  the 
seventh-day  Sabbath,  felt  scruples  of  conscience  a- 
bout  omitting  it,  as  they  did  also  about  omitting  cir- 
cumcision ;  and,  under  this  impression,  might  at- 
tend Synagogue  worship,  when  there  was  no  apos- 
tle there  to  preach  Christ  ;  nay,  some  of  them,  con- 
trary to  the  usage  of  the  more  enlightened  Christians 
might  for  a  time,  convene  together  for  devotional  pur- 
poses, on  the  seventh  day,  besides  meeting  with  the 
Church  on  the  first  day.  These  circumstances,  no 
doubt,  occasioned  all  that  historians  have  said  about 
the  primitive  Christians,  as  observing  both  days. 

Such  tampering  with  Judaism,  however,  soon  be- 
came offensive  to  theChristain  Church  ;  for  Ignatius, 
v/ho  was  so  early  a  Christian  as  to  have  been  a 
hearer  and  a  disciple  of  the  apostle  John,  used  to  say 
to  his  brethren,  "  Let  us  no  longer  Sabbatize,  but 
keep  the  Lord's  day,  on  which  our  Life  arose.''  Epis. 
ad  Mfignes.   c.  9. 

Some  practical  improvement  of  the  subject,  must 
be  reserved  for  a  concluding  letter. 

Yours,  in  Christian  love, 

WM.  PARKINSON. 


LETTER  Xlli. 


To  THE  Rev.  Mr.  Maxsox. 

Octoher  2,  1835. 

Dear  Sir — Agreeable  to  promise,  I  shall  now  inako 
some  practical  improvement  of  the  subject  discussed 
in  these  letters.  In  doing  this,  I  beg  leave  to  advert 
briefly,  to  a  few  of  the  facts  stated  and  proved,  for 
the  purpose  of  rendering  them  the  more  fixed  and 
familiar  in  the  mind  of  the  reader.  Let  it  be  remem- 
bered, then, 

1.  That  the  15th  o'l  Nisan,  the  first  day  of  the 
feast  of  unleavened  bread,  sometimes  called  the  Pas- 
sover, was  the  first  of  the  two  annual  convocations 
appertaining  to  that  feast — that  this  convocation, 
Avhatever  day  of  the  week  it  fell  on,  was  called  a 
Sabbath  ;  ^Levit.  xxiii.  11— 15)— that  this  day  (the 
15th)  like  any  other  day  of  the  same  or  of  any 
other  month,  did  not  always  fall  on  the  same 
day  of  the  week,  but  varied  annually  ;  insomuch, 
that  once  in  every  7  years  (or  thereabout)  it  fell 
on  tlie  loeekly  or  seventh-day  Sabbath — that,  by 
the  predestinated  arrangement  of  him  v\^ho  "declares 
the  end  from  the  beginning,'^  the  crucifixion  of  Christ 
took  place  on  the  14th  oi  Nisan,  the  day  before  the^  con- 
vocational  Sabbath,  which,  that  year,  concurred  with 
the  weekly  Sabbath  ;  and  therefore  that,  as  proved, 
the  day   of  the  crucifixion  was  i^>/(^f?f/,  "the  day   be- 


128  SABBATH    DISCUSSION. 

fore  the  Sabbath,"  weekly^  as  well  as  festival.  Mark 
XV.  42  ;  Luke  xxiii.  54. 

2.  That  in  regard  to  the  passover,  facts  stated  in 
these  letters  show  a  remarkable  accordance  between 
the  type  and  Antitype.  Omitting  lesser  matters,  the 
lambs  for  the  paschal  supper  were  to  be  killed  on 
the  fourteenth  of  the  first  month,  Ahib  or  Nisan,  and 
between  the  two  evenings,  which  was  at  3  o'clock, 
P.  M.,  the  middle  hour  between  12  or  noon,  when  the 
frst  evening  began,  and  6  or  sunset,  when  the  sec- 
ond evening  began.  And,  on  the  same  day  of  the 
same  month,  and  at  the  sa?ne  hour  of  the  day,  "Christ 
our  passover  was  sacrificed  for  us''  on  the  cross  ;  it 
being  at  about  the  ninth  hour  ;  which,  counting  from 
six  in  the  morning,  was  three  in  the  afternoon.  In 
respect  of  the  types,  see  Exo.  xii.  6,  (original)  and 
Levit.  xxiii.  5.  Then  compare  Matt,  xxvii.  46 — 50  ; 
Mark  xv.  34 — 37  ;  Luke  xxiii.  44 — 46.  Again  :  as 
on  the  14th  was  "the  Lord's  passover" — as  on  the 
15th  was  the  festival  Sabbath — and  as  on  the  16th, 
"the  morrow  after  iJie  Sabbath,"  the  first  fruits 
were  presented  ;  so  Christ  was  crucitied  on  Friday, 
the  14th  of  Nisan — lay  in  the  sepulchre  during  the 
Sabbath,  the  15th,  and  rose  on  the  16th,  "the  mor- 
row after  the  Sabbath,"  that  is,  on  the^^r^  day  of  the 
week,  and  thus  is  "became  the  first  fruits  of  them 
that  slept,"  or  that  ever  would  sleep  in  him.  See 
Levit.  xxiii.  5,  10,  11,  and  comp.  Mark  xvi.  1,  2,  9. 

3  That  these  letters  contain  decided  evidence, 
that  the  day  of  Pentecost,  on  which  the  Holy  Ghost 
descended,  as  the  ascension  gift  of  Christ,  was  the 
first  day  of  the  tveek.  The  fact  is  demonstrable  by 
a  due  consideration  of  the  law  itself:  "Ye  shall 
count  unto  you  from  the  morrow  after  the  Sabbath, 
from  the  day  that  ye  brought  the  sheaf  of  the  wave- 
offering  ;  seven  sabbaths    shall  be  complete  :  even 


SABBATH    DISCUSSION.  129 

unto  the  morrow  after  the  seventh  Sabbath  shall  ye 
number  fifty  days,"  &c.  Levit.  xxiii.  15,  16.  To 
understand  this  injunction  rightly,  the  reader  must 
recollect — 1.  That  shahhathoth,  rendered  sabbaths, 
(ver  15)  is  here  used  to  denote  weeks,  and  that 
shabbath,  rendered  sabbath,  (ver.  16)  is  used  to  de- 
note a  week.  Hence  this  festival  was  called  "the 
feast  of  weeks."  Exo.  xxxiv.  22  ;  Deut.  xvi,  10, 
16  ;  II  Chron.  viii.  13.  This  is  so  obvious,  that 
Targumists,  and  all  commentators.  Christian  as  well 
as  Jewish,  are  agreed  in  it.  In  like  manner,  the  cor- 
responding Greek  word,  Sabbaton,  both  singular  and 
plural,  is  used  to  denote  a  week,  See  Mark  xvi.  2, 
9  ;  Luke  xviii.  12.  2.  That  the  seven  weeks  be 
counted  from  the  morrow  after  the  Sabbath,  were  not 
to  commence  when  that  morrow  ended,  but  when  it 
began;  it  being  the  day  when  "the  sickle  might  be 
put  to  the  standing  corn."  Deut.  xvi.  ^^  3.  That 
the  seven  weeks  were  to  be  complete,  making  49  days 
and  consequently,  that  the  morrow  after  the  seventh 
Sabbath,  that  is,  week,  had  run  out,  was  the  fiftieth 
day,  according  to  Levit.  xxiii.  16.  Hence  this  fes- 
tival had  its  Greek  name  Pentecost,  the  fiftieth. 
Acts  ii.  1  ;  I  Cor.  xvi.  8.  4.  That  although  the  Sab- 
bath mentioned  Levit.  xxiii.  11,  15,  was  the  first  of 
the  two  convocational  sabbaths  appertaining  to  the 
feast  of  unleavened  bread,  yet  that  in  the  year  of  our 
Lord's  crucifixion,  this  Sabbath,  (as  noticed  above, 
and  as  proved  in  Letter  vii,  part  1,)  fell  on  the  week- 
ly, or  seventh-day  Sabbath.  Now,  beginning  with 
the  "morrow"  after  that  Sabbath,  I  mean  with  the 
morrow  after  the  Sabbath  during  which  Christ  lay 
in  the  sepulchre,  and  therefore  with  the  first  day  of 
the  week — nay,  with  the  very  day  on  which  Christ 
arose,  and  counting  se\  en  weeks  complete,  that  is, 
49  days,  you  will  find  them  to  end  with  a  seventh-day 


150  SABBATH    DISCUSSION. 

Sahhathy   and  consequently  that   the   next,   the    50th 
day,  was  the  frst  day  of  the  lueek. 

By  way  of  making  a  further  and  a  more  practical 
improvement  of  the  subject  embraced  in  these  letters, 
I  shall  consider  several  things  in  relation  to  the  day 
which  most  Christians  profess  to  sanctify. 

Even  the  name  or  names  by  which  it  is  most  fit 
and  proper  we  should  denote  this  day.  To  many, 
this  may  seem  trivial.  That  it  is  a  matter  of  minor 
importance,  I  readily  admit  ;  and  would,  by  no 
means,  have  it  magnilied  into  any  thing  like  a  crite- 
rion of  -^Christian  character,  or  even  of  Christian 
fellowship  or  affection  ;  being  persuaded  that  Chris- 
tians equally  devout  differ  in  their  phraseology,  ac- 
cording to  education  and  usage.  Nevertheless,  be- 
lieving as  I  do,  that  the  first  day  of  the  week  is,  by 
weekly  rotation,  the  first  day  of  time — the  first  day 
on  which  the  manna  fell — the  first  day  of  the  Re- 
deemer's resurrection  life — the  first  day  on  which 
the  Gospel  of  the  risen  Saviour  was  preached  ;  and, 
withal,  that  it  was  the  day  on  which  the  Holy  Ghost, 
according  to  promise,  descended  as  the  witness  that 
Jesus  was  "glorified;"  (John  vii.  39;  IrTim.  iii. 
16  ;)  believing,  I  say,  and  having,  I  think,  shown 
that  our  blessed  Lord  hath  been  pleased  thus  various- 
ly to  honor  and  distinguish  the  first  day  of  the  week, 
and  thereby  so  manifestly  to  sanctify  it,  that  is,  that 
is,  to  set  it  apart  as  a  day  of  Christian  worship,  and 
especially  to  be  employed  in  preachmg  and  hearing 
the  Gospel,  it  seems  to  mc  most  fit  and  proper,  that 
we  should  chiefly  distinguish  the  day  by  an  appella- 
tion correspondent  to  the  dispensation  to  which  its 
observance  is  appropriate,  and  under  which  we 
live. 

Hence,  to  call  the  first  day  of  the    week  the   Sab- 
hath,  as  most  Christians  do,  is  obviously  inconsistent ; 


SABBATH     DISCUSSTOxX.  131 

the  very  name  savors  of  Judaism,  and  tends  to  con- 
found the  Christian  with  the  Mosaic  dispensation. 
Christ  arose,  not  on  the  Sabbath,  but  "when  the  Sab- 
bath was  past,''  and  the  "first  day  of  the  week"  had 
commenced.  Mark  xvi.  1,  2,  9.  The  word  Sah' 
hath,  in  fact,  as  the  appropriate  name  of  a  day,  is 
peculiar  to  Judaism.  Shavath,  rest  or  rested,  occurs 
it  is  true,  in  Gen.  ii.  3  ;  but  shabbath.  Sabbath  is  not 
to  be  found  till  in  the  account  of  the  manna.  Exo. 
xvi.  According,  from  that  time,  the  seventh  day,  (its 
weekly  return  being  ascertained  by  the  falling  of  the 
manna,)  was  uniformly  styled  the  Sabbath  by  the 
inspired  writers.  So  that  day  w^as  constantly  named 
by  Christ  and  his  apostles  ;  but  it  does  not  appear 
that  either  he  or  any  one  of  them  ever  gave  the  ap- 
pellation Sabbath  to  the  first  day  of  the  w^eek. 

Nevertheless,  some  Christians,  though  they  ob- 
serve the  Jirst  day,  seem  to  think  it  cannot  be  duly 
sanctified  under  any  other  name  than  that  of  the 
Sabbath  ;  and  some  writers  have  fancied  that  they 
find  New  Testament  authority  for  so  calling  it.  This 
fancied  authority  they  derive  chiefly  from  the  word 
sabbaton,  as  used  by  three  of  Xhq  Evangelists  in  re- 
lating the  resurrection  of  Christ.  See  Mark  xvi.  2, 
9  ;  Luke  xxiv.  1  ;  and  John  xx.  1.  That  sabbaton, 
by  regular  declension,  is  the  gen.  pi.  of  sabbaton, 
and  that  sabbaton  is  constantly  used  to  denote  the 
seventh-day  Sabbath,  I  readily  admit.  An  instance 
occurs  in  Mark  xvi.  1 — "And  when  the  Sabbath 
[tou  Sabbaton]  was  past,  [or  thro7igh,~\  Mary  Mag- 
dalene and  Mary  the  mother  of  James  and  Salome, 
had  brought  [to  the  tomb  of  Christ]  sweet  spices,  that 
they  might  come  and  anoint  him.  And  [ver.  2] 
very  early  in  the  morning,  tes  mias  sabbaton  the  first 
of  the  Sabbath,  &c.  But,  if  sabbaton  here  means  a 
day,  the  first  of  this  day  can  mean  nothing  other  thau 


132  SABBATH    DISCUSSION. 

what  is  before  expressed  by  very  early  in  the  morning. 
And,  admitting  the  same  acceptation  of  the  word  in 
question,  the  same  tautology  must  occur  in  ver.  9, 
and  in  Luke  xxiv.  1,  and  in  John  xx.  1.  Sabbaton, 
therefore,  in  the  places  just  referred  to,  cannot  mean 
Sabbath,  as  denoting  a  day,  but  as  denoting  a  week. 
Comp.  Levit.  xxiii.  15.  So  our  learned  translators 
understood  the  word  as  used  by  the  Evangelists  ;  and 
accordingly  represent  each  of  them  as  saying  that 
Christ  rose  [not  on  the  first  of  the  Sabbath,  but]  "on 
the  first  of  the  week,''''  that  is,  on  the  first  day  of  the 
week  ;  "when  the  Sabbath  was  past"  ov  through.  Be- 
sides, the  word  in  dispute  is  found  in  a  connection 
wherein  few,  if  any,  will  venture  to  say,  that  it  means 
a  Sabbath  day.  I  allude  to  the  words  of  the  Phari- 
see, in  Luke  xviii.  12  :  Nesleuo  dis  ton  sahbatou,  lit- 
erally, I  fast  ttoice  of  a  Sabbath.  But  how  could  he 
keep  two  fasts  on  one  day  '?  To  say,  he  meant  that  he 
omitted  two  meals  on  the  Sabbath,  is  puerile.  More- 
over, according  to  Rabbinical  authority,  the  Jews, 
even  the  poorest  of  them,  were  required  to  eat  three 
meals  or  feasts  on  the  Sabbath.  But,  understanding 
the  Pharisee  as  spea^Jng  agreeably  to  the  usage  of 
his  sect,  who,  at  that  time,  fosted  on  the  second  and 
fiftJi  day  of  each  week,  his  words  are  plain  ;  he  said, 
as  in  our  version,  "I  fast  twice  in  the  week  ;"  which 
was  on  Monday  and  on  Thursday.  If  sabbatismos, 
a  sabbatism,  in  Heb.  iv.  9,  have  any  respect  to  the 
first  day  of  the  week,  it  can  only  be  as  this  day  is  an 
evangelical  symbol,  and  a  weekly  remembrancer  of  the 
Church's  present  rest  in  Christ,  and  of  her  future  rest 
with  Christ. 

To  avoid  this  obvious  inconsistency,  many  Chris- 
tians, though  tenacious  of  the  Jewish  name  Sabbath, 
yet  qualify  it  by  prefixingthe  epithet  Christian  ;  call- 
ing the  first  day  of  the  week  the    Christian  Sabbath. 


SABBATH     DISCUSSION. 


133 


But  might  not  those  Ohristians  who  observed  the 
seventh  day,  with  equal — nay,  with  much  more  propri- 
ety, call  that  day  the  Christian  Sabbath  ?  that  being 
the  day  known  in  Scripture  as  the  Sabbath.  Be- 
sides, if  it  be  proper  to  call  either  day  the  Christian 
Sabbath,  why  is  it  not  equally  proper  to  call  the 
Lord's  Supper  the  Christian  Passover  ? 

Shall  we,  then,  call  the  day  under  consideration 
Sunday  ?  So  far,  indeed,  as  etymology  is  concern- 
ed, there  is  just  as  much  propriety  in  calling  the  first 
day  of  the  week  Sunday,  as  there  is  in  calling,  as 
we  do,  the  second  Monday,  the  third  Tuesday, 
&c.,  each  name  being  of  heathen  origin,  and  an 
acknowledgement  of  some  one  of  their  idols.  The 
heathen  nations  having  received  the  notion  of  a  week- 
ly division  of  time  by  tradition,  from  their  patriarchs, 
Hafn  and  Japheth-,  and  having  through  ignorance  of 
the  Supreme  Being,  addicted  themselves  to  the  ado- 
ration of  the  heavenly  bodies  and  of  other  agents, 
natural  or  imaginary,  dedicated  the  days  of  their 
week  to  these  objects  of  their  idolatrous  worship. 
While  their  idolatry  was  confined  to  "the  host  of 
heaven,^'  they  dedicated  the  days  of  their  week  to  the 
seven  planets,  as  then  called,  including  the  sun  ;  but 
the  northern  nations,  having  extended  idolatry  to 
other  objects,  made  some  variation  in  the  dedication 
of  their  seven  days.  The  first,  as  being  esteemed  the 
most  honorable,  they  still  dedicated  to  the  sun,  the 
most  illustrious  of  their  deities.  This  day  the  Sax- 
ons called  Sunna-dczg,  the  sun's  day  ;  hence  Sunday. 
The  second  they  dedicated  to  the  moon,  the  planet 
next  to  the  sun  in  conspicuity  and  usefulness.  This 
day  they  called  Monan-dceg,  the  moon's  day  ;  hence 
Monday.  The  third  they  dedicated  to  Tuisco,  th« 
most  ancient  idol  of  the  Teutonicks,  and  which  is 
thought  by  some  to  be  the  same  with  Mars,  the  god  of 


134  SABBATH     DISCUSSION. 

war.  This  day  they  called  Tiues-d<xg,  Tiu's  day  ; 
hence  Tuesday.  The  fourth  to  Woden  or  Odhiy  the 
supreme  deity  of  the  Scythians,  and  supposed  inven- 
tor of  the  arts.  This  day  they  called  Wodnes-dcEg, 
Woden's  day  ;  hence  Wednesday.  The  fifth  they 
dedicated  to  Thor,  the  god  of  thunder,  corresponding 
to  the  Jove  of  the  Greeks  and  Romans.  This  day 
they  called  Thors-dcrg,  Thunder's  day  ;  hence 
Thursday.  The  sixth  they  dedicated  to  Frigga,  the 
Venus  of  the  north,  and  called  Frig-dag^  Frigga's 
day ;  hence  Friday.  The  seventh  they  dedicated  to 
Saturn,  an  idolized  planet,  and  called  it  Seter-dcEg, 
Saturn's  day  ;  hence  Saturday.  This  heathen  no- 
menclature may  be  innocently  retained,  at  least  in 
civil  usage  ;  provided  we  reject  the  idolatry  in  which 
it  originated.  The  planets  and  elements,  as  the  crea- 
tures of  God  are  all  good  and  the  means  of  much  good  to 
us.  Therefore,  to  call  the  days  of  the  weeks  by  names 
derived  from  them,  is  harmless  ;  but  we  must  not, 
like  the  heathen,  dedicated  the  day  of  the  week  to 
them.  That  Sunday  v/as  tolerated  among  the  early 
Christians,  as  a  name  of  the  first  day  of  the  week,  is 
evident  ;  for  so  the  day  was  called  by  Tertullian 
commonly,  and  even  by  Justin  Martyr  occasionally. 
But,  though  they  so  far  conformed  to  heathenism  as 
to  call  this  day  of  the  week  Sunday,  it  does  not  ap- 
pear that  they  so  far  conformed  to  Judaism,  as  ever 
to  call  it  the  SahhatJi-day. 

There  is,  however,  no  necessity  for^  compliance, 
in  that  matter,  either  with  Judaism  or  heathenism. 
Merely  to  note  the  weekly  order  of  that  day,  the 
verbal  denomination  of  which  is  in  question,  it  is  suffi- 
cient to  style  it  the  First  day,  that  is,  the  first  o'l  the 
week.  So  it  was  designated  by  each  of  the  Evan- 
gelist ;  and  so  it  is  noted  by  the  Society  of  Friends  ; 
who  also,  in  like  manner,  note  the  o^ther  days  of  the 


SABBATH     DISCUSSION.  135 

week,  that  is,  by  their  ordinal  numbers,  second,  thirds 
&;c.  Thus  Mo38s  specified  the  days  in  the  creatioa 
— week,  the  first  week  of  time,  Gen.  i.  Nevertlie- 
less,  to  distinguish  the  first  day  of  the  week,  as  the 
day  on  v/hich  the  fcody  of  our  Lord  was  raised  from 
the  dead,  it  is  eminently  proper  to  call  it  ihe  Lord/H 
day.  By  this  appropriate  name,  it  was  certainly 
and  commonly  known  and  honored  among  the  prim- 
itive Christians  ;  for  the  apostle  John,  addressing 
the  Churches  of  Asia,  said,  "1  was  in  the  Spirit  on 
the  Lord's  day,^^  without  giving  any  explanation, 
what  day  he  so  stiied,  Rev.  i.  10  If  as  some  think, 
he  meant  the  Gospel  dispensation  by  the  Lord's  day 
his  notation  was  wholly  superfluous  ;  all  knowing  the 
dispensation  under  which  he  Vv' rote.  Others  say,  is 
not  every  day  the  Lord's  ?  Yes,  but  for  this  very 
roason,  it  must  be  evident  to  every  unprejudiced  mind 
that  he  must  have  meant  some  certain  day,  that  was 
appropnately  styled  the  Z/or^Z'5  t/a?/.  And  if  he  had 
meant  the  seventh  a^y,  (as  Mr.  Biirnside  thought,)  he 
would  doubtless  have  styled  it  the  Sahhath^  as  ho  and 
the  other  apostles — nay,  Christ  himself,  had  con- 
stantly denominated  that  day.  It  is  therefore  man 
ifest,  that  John  by  the  day  which  he  called  the  Lord^s 
day,  must  have  meant  the  First  day  of  the  week,  the 
memorable  day  of  our  Lord's  resurrection.  '^This  is 
the  day  which  the  Lord  hath  made,"  as  a  symbol  of 
our  rest  under  the  Gospel,  and  of  our  final  rest  in 
Heaven:  "we  will  rejoice  and  be  glad  in  it.*'  Psal 
exviii.  24. 

I  regret  having  had  to  cover  so  much  paper  with, 
words  about  the  mere  name  of  the  day  ;  but  having 
touched  the  question,  I  could  find  no  earlier  stop- 
ping place.  Nor  am  I  willing,  even  now,  to  drop 
the  question  about  naming  the  day  under  considera- 
tion, without  adding  that,  in  my  humble  opinion, 
i2 


186  SABBATH    DISCUSSIOX. 

Christians  will  find  it  a  relief  both  to  the  ear  and  to 
the  conscience,  to  observe  the  following,  or  some  sim- 
ilar variety  in  expression.  When  in  conversation 
about  Avorldly  matters,  and  especially  when  holding 
such  conversation  with  persons  of  the  world,  if  we 
have  occasion  to  name  the  first  day  of  the  week,  let 
us  call  it  Sunday  ;  but  when  conversing  among  our- 
selves, and  especially  if  about  our  privileges  on  thai 
day,  let  us  call  it  the  LorcVs  day,  that  we  may  therein 
acknowledge  Him  by  whom  we  enjoy  those  privileges. 
A  like  difference,  too,  may  be  fitly  made  when  nam- 
ing the  day  in  construction  with  a  town  denoting  some 
institution,  as  such  institution  may  be  moral  or  devo- 
tional, htwian  or  divine.  For  instance,  to  distinguish 
a  school  taught  on  the  First  day  of  the  week,  from 
schools  taught  on  other  days,  let  us  call  it  a  Sunday 
school ;  and,  to  distinguish  a  devotional  meeting  held 
on  that  day,  from  similar  meetings  held  on  other  days, 
let  us  call  it  a  Lord's  day  meeting.  Thus  the  apostle 
to  distinguish  the  eucharist  from  ordinary  meals,  sty- 
led it  Kuriakon  deipnon,  *'the  Lord^s  Supper.^'  I 
Cor.  xi.  20. 

Contrary  to  expectation,  I  must  beg  leave  to  re- 
serve the  balance  of  what  relates  to  practical  improve- 
ment, for  next  week, — Yours  in  the  Lord. 

WM.  PARKINSON. 


LETTER    XIV. 


To  THE  RBV.  Wm.  Maxsok.        ^^^^^^^  ^^  ^^^^ 

Dear  Sir,— In  continuance  of  the  practical  im- 
provement begun  in  my  letter  of  last  week,  the  next 
Cng  in  relation  to  the  Lord's  day,  .s  to  constder  the 
extent  of  the  obligation  to  observe  it.  i  his  obhga- 
"o„  I  understand  to  be  commensurate  with  the  Gos- 
cel  report  of  the  institution.  And  as  this  report  « 
divine  y  authorized  to  be  made  to  all  nations,  to  all 
ikew.Hd-n^y,  to  every  .reaure  oi  the  human  race, 
all,  of  every  nation,  as  it  is  made  known  to  them, 
are,  by  divine  authority,  required  to  observe  the 
lord's  day:  1.  I«  a^^knowledgement  of  God  as 
their  Creator,  and  the  Creator  ol  the  world   they    n- 

abit;  "I,"  saith  Jehovah,  "have  made  the  earth, 
and  crocited  man  upon  it ;  my  hands  have  stretched 
out  the  heavens,  and  all  their  host  have  I  comman- 
ded "  Is  xlv  13.  "O  Lord,  how  manifold  are 
thv'works!  in  wisdom  hast  thou  n«de  them  all  :  the 
earth  is  full  of  thy  riches.  "  Ps.  civ.  24.  '' I"  l"m 
we  live,  and  move  and  have  our  being.  A<=»«  f J"; 
28.  "Come,  then,  let  us  worship  and  bow  down  , 
fet  us  kneel  before  the  Lonn  our  Maker  "  Ps.  xcv 
6  \nd  2.— In  acknowledgment  of  Christ,  as  the 
only'  Redeemer  and  Saviour  of  creatures,   circum- 


iSS  SABBATH    DISCUSSION. 

stanccd  as  we  are  :  *'This  is  a  faithful  saying,  and 
worthy  of  all  acceptation,  that  Christ  Jesus  came 
into  the  world  to  save  sinners  ;  neither  is  there  salva- 
tion in  any  other.''  Acts  iv.  12;  I.  Tim.  i.  15. 
So  the  Christians  who  lived  next  to  the  times  of  the 
Apostle,  understood  the  obligation  to  observe  \he first 
day  of  the  week  ;  Ignatitis,  who  was  a  hearer  and 
an  associate  of  the  Apostle  John,  and  who  suffered 
martydom  under  Tragan,  in  his  letter  to  the  Magne- 
sians,  urged  that  "this  day  of  the  Lord,  this  day  of 
the  resurrection,  should  be  honored  as  the  first  and 
most  excellent  of  days.  "  And  Jasiin  Martyr  [Apol- 
ogy 2.  ad  finem]  says,  "The  Christians  assemble  to- 
gether on  this  day,  because  it  was  the  day  of  the 
creation  of  the  world,  and  of  the  resurrection  of  Jesus 
Christ.  In  vain,  therefore,  do  any  profess  to  believe 
in  God  as  the  Creator,  or  in  Christ  l-.s  .  the  Redeemer 
and  Saviour,  who  do  not  religiously  observe  the 
Lord's  day,  whether  they  understand  it  to  be  the 
first  day  of  the  week,  or  the  seventh. 

Hence  it  becomes  requisite  to  consider  how  the 
Lord's  day  should  be  observed.  Not,  surely,  us  a 
day  of  recreation,  by  spending  it,  as  many  do,  in 
strolling,  or  in  riding  or  sailing.  Nor  should  it  be 
spent  in  lounging,  even  at  home,  and  much  less  in 
taverns  or  ti])pling~houses,  in  which  many,  it  is  to  be 
feared,  spend  most  of  their  weekly  earnings,  so  re- 
quisite to  the  support  of  their  needy  families.  Nor 
in  reading  such  books  as  serve  only  to  gratify  and 
promote  wordly  mindedness,  and  sensual  inclinations  ; 
or  even  in  such  reading  as  would  be  proper  and  use- 
ful on  other  days,  but  is  not  adapted  to  the  character 
oi^  that  day  :  I  mean  the  reading  of  news ^  merely  civil 
or  mercantile,  or  of  works  merely  historical  or  literary. 
The  very  style  of  the  day,  in  fact,  suggests  how  it 
should  be  spent.      It  is  the  Lord's  day,  and  thereforis 


SABBATH    DISCUSSION.  139 

should  be  spent  in  the  Lord's  service.  1.  This  day,  in 
its  weekly  return,  should  be  hailed  with  gratitude  and 
gladness,  as  an  appropriate  rcmemhranccr,  both  of 
creation  and  redemytion:  •' This  is  the  day  which 
the  Lord  hath  made,''  as  a  symbol  of  our  spiritual 
rest,  both  gracious  and  glorious  ;  "we  will  be  glad 
and  rejoice  in  it."'  Moved  by  these  considerations, 
Christians  might  severally  and  fitly  begin  their  Lord's 
day  devotions  by  singing,  [at  least  repeating]  a  verso 
or  more  of  some  appropriate   psalm  or  hymn,  as — 

"This  is  the  day  ihe  Lord   hath  made, 
lie  calls  the  hours  his  owu,"  &c.; 

or 

''Welcome  sweet  day  of  rest, 
On  which  the  Lord  arose,"  &.c. 

With  atfections  thus  elevated,  we  shall  find  it  pleas- 
ant and  profitable  to  spend  a  few  moments,  at  least 
in  private  prayer.  2.  We  should,  as  at  all  times, 
so  especially  on  the  Lord's  day,  eagerly  embrace  all 
opportunities  of  reading  the  Holy  Scriptures,  through 
faiths  in  which  '*  we  understand  that  the  worlds  were 
framed  by  the  word  of  God  ;  [Heb.  xi.  3.  Comp.  Gen. 
i.  1  and  Uom.  i.  20  :]  and  that  Christ,  *<who  was  de- 
livered for  our  oliences,  was  raised  again  for  our  jus- 
tification."— Rom.  iv.  3 — 25.  Having  united  in  fam- 
ily worship,  as  well  as  observed  private  devotions,  all 
favored  with  the  opportunity  and  ability,  should  be 
careful  to  attend  at  some  place  where  God  is  public- 
ly worshipped  in  the  name  of  Jesus — thereby  openly 
acknowledging  the  Creator  and  the  Redeemer.-— 
Such  was  the  usage  of  Paul  ;  Acts  xx.  7  ;  and  such, 
too,  was  the  charge  which  he  gave  to  Christians. 
Heb.  X.  25.  Comp.  I  Cor.  xvi.  2.  All,  I  say, 
should  thus  assemble,  because  all  are  indebted  to  God 
for  their  creation  and  preservation;  Acts  xvii.  24 — 
28 — because  "  he  hath  appointed  a  day  in  the  which 
he  will   judge  the  world  in  righteousness,''    by  him 


140  SABBATH    DISCUSSION", 

whom  "he  hath  raised  from  the  dead  ,'''  ver.  31  ;  be- 
cause there  is  salvation  in  Christ,  whose  resurrec- 
tion-day we  observe;  "neither  is  there  salvation 
in  any  other  ;''  Acts  iv.  12  ;  and  because  he  hath 
commanded  his  ministers  to  teach  all  nations,  [Matt, 
xxviii.  19]  and  to  preach  the  Gospel  to  every  crea- 
ture.    Mark  xvi.   15.     Comp.   Luke   xxiv.   47. 

It  is  true  indeed,  that  in  this  and  in  every  civili- 
zed country,  there  are  neighborhoods,  and  even  villa- 
ges, the  inhabitants  of  which  have  no  places  of  evan- 
gelical worship  to  which  they  may  resort,  nor  any 
evangelical  teachers,  to  whose  instructions  they  may 
listen  ;  but  if,  in  any  such  neighborhood  or  village, 
there  reside  some  Christians,  these,  however  few, 
should  "not  neglect  the  assembling  of  themselves  to- 
gether,'' remembering  that  our  blessed  Master  hath 
said,  "Where  two  or  three  are  gathered  together  in 
my  name,  there  am  1  in  the  midst  of  them."  Matt, 
xviii.  20.  If  no  more  suitable  place  can  be  had,  they 
can  meet  in  one  of  their  own  houses,  changing  the 
place  from  time  to  time,  as  convenience  may  require  or 
suggest.  Such  Christians  should  not  only  meet  them- 
selves, at  least  on  every  Lord's  day,  but  should  en- 
deavor to  prevail  on  their  families  and  neighbors  to 
meet  with  them,  for  whose  edification  they  should 
employ  such  gifts  as  they  have  received  from  the 
Lord.  At  each  meeting,  let  one  read  a  chapter  of 
the  Bible  ;  let  two  or  three  in  turn,  lead  in  prayer, 
interspersing  these  services  with  "psalms,  hymns  and 
spiritual  songs."  Occasionally,  let  some  one,  the 
best  qualified,  read  a  printed  sermon  ;  and,  at  other 
times,  if  any  have  the  gift  of  exhortation,  let  them 
use  it.  See  Rom.  xii.  6 — 8.  Perhaps,  too,  by  ma- 
king an  effort  for  the  purpose,  a  preacher,  once  in  a 
while,  might  be  had,  of  whose  coming  general  notice 
should  be   given.      Or,  probably,  by  applying  to   the 


SABBATH    DISCLTSSION'.  141 

Board  of  some  evangelical  Mission  Society,  a  stated 
supply  of  preaching  might  be  obtained.  This,  it  might 
be  hoped,  would  soon,  under  divine  blessing,  be  follow- 
ed by  the  constitution  of  a  Church.  A  Sunday  school 
also  miglit  be  got  up,  to  the  great  advantage  of  ma- 
ny children,  and  even  of  adults,  especially  of  such, 
young  or  old,  as  need  to  be  taught  to  read.  It  would 
not  only  keep  many  from  various  evil  pursuits,  but 
afford  them  the  means  of  getting  much  useful  knowl- 
edge. Nay,  should  Christians  be  found  so  dispersed 
and  separated  as  not  to  be  able  even  to  hold  a  social 
meeting,  let  each  remem.ber,  at  least,  that  the  jirst 
day  of  the  week  is  emphatically  the  Lord's  day, 
and  spend  it,  as  much  as  possible,  in  his  various  ser- 
vice ;  as  in  reading  his  word,  and  such  other  religious 
books  as  they  can  severally  procure,  accompanied 
with  prayer,  and  praise,  and  mediation.  See  Ps.  i. 
1,  2  ;  Ix.  1,  2  ;  Ixxvii.   12.   Jer.   xv.   16. 

Preparatory,  then  to  the  due  observance  of  the 
Lord's  day,  it  must  be  obvious,  that  all  to  whom  the 
report  of  the  institution  has  come,  should  endeavor  to 
have  their  week's  work  finished  by  Saturday  evening, 
that  all  their  secular  avocations  may  be  suspended 
during  the  ensuing  day.  Nay,  in  this  respect,  it 
will  be  iound  highly  advantageous  to  them,  to  retire 
earlier  on  Saturday  evening  than  they  usually  do  on 
other  evenings,  that  they  may  rise  earlier  on  Lord's 
day  morning  than  they  usually  do  on  other  morn- 
ings. Let  Christians,  especially,  remember  and  im- 
itate those  holy  women  who  went  early  to  the  Sepul- 
chre. Early  meditations  on  the  tomb  of  Christ,  vaca- 
ted by  his  resurrection,  after  *'He  had  put  away  sin 
by  the  sacrifice  of  himself,"  may  be  very  conducive 
to  our  spiritual  comfort ;  it  may  be  the  means  of  our 
enjoying  more  abundantly  * 'the  power  of  his  resurrec- 
tion," the  forgiveness  of  our  sins.    Read  Matt,  xxviii 


142  SABBATH    DISCUSSION- 

5.  6.     Mark  xvi.  6.  Luke  xxiv.  1—6.  13—53.  also 
John  xix. 

To  promote  the  convenience,  regularity,  and  tran- 
quility of  our  Lord's  day  devotions,  both  domestic 
and  public,  every  member  oi^ev'ery  household  is  con- 
cerned. Any  member  of  a  family,  by  staying  out 
late  on  Saturday  night,  or  bj/  lying  abed  on  Lord's 
day  morning,  may  incommode  all  the  rest.  Let 
this  be  recollected  by  husbands,  wives,  and  children  ; 
also  by  domestics  and  apprentices  ;  nor  let  it  be  for- 
gotten by  visitors  ;  that  no  one  or  more  of  any  house- 
hold may  retard  or  interrupt  the  duties  appropriate 
to  that  day,  which  the  Lord  specially  claims  as  his 
own. 

That  all  secular  pursuits  (excepting  only  works 
of  necessity  and  mercy)  should  be  suspended  on  the 
Lord's  day,  is  taught,  (as  shown  in  these  letters,)  by 
divine  example,  in  reference  both  to  the  seventh  day 
and  the  first.  God,  having  finished  his  works  of  crea- 
tion on  the  sixth  day,  rested  on  the  seventh  ;  thereby 
teaching  Adam  and  his  immediate  posterity,  to  cease 
from  ordinary  labor  on  that  day  ;  and  Christ  having 
finished  his  vicarious  obedience  and  sacrifice  on  the 
sixth  day,  thereupon  "ceased  from  his  own  works,  a3 
God  did  from  his.'^  Comp.  Gen.  ii.  2.  with  Heb.i  v. 
10.  Thus  we  are  taught, — 1.  To  cease  from  our 
secular  avocations  on  the  Lord^s  day,  in  commemo- 
ration of  His  rest  ;  and — 2.  To  cease  from  any  reli- 
ance upon  our  own  works,  for  justification  before  God, 
in  acknowledgment  of  the  all-sufficiency  of  Christ's 
vicarious  "obedience  unto  death,  ^'  for  the  salvation 
of  all  who  believe  in  him.  It  is  "not  of  works,  lest 
any  man  should  boast."  Eph.  ii.  9.  To  obtain  jus- 
tification, we  work  not  but  believe  to  the  saving  of  the 
soul  Heb.  X.  39.  Comp.  Rom.  iv.  4— 6.x.  4-11. 
If  unbelievers  hence  take  occasion  to  say,  It  matters 


SABBATH   DISCUSSION.  143 

not,  then,  how  we  live  ;  I  must  remind  them  that,  as 
unbelievers,  they  are  under  the  law,  and  bound  to 
observe  and  to  satisfy  it  perfectly,  as  the  only  condition 
of  delivering  themselves  from  its  penal  curse.  Gal. 
iii.  10.  Hence  it  is,  that  no  human  being  can  bo 
justified  in  that  way.  Rom.  iii.  20.  And  as  to  believ- 
ers, their  chief  regret  is,  that  their  obedience  is  so  im- 
perfect, their  practical  godliness  so  eleficient ;  know- 
ing that,  (if  believers  indeed,)  they  have  been  *'crea- 
ted  in  Christ  Jesus  unto  good  loorks,  which  God  hath 
before  ordained  that  we  should  walk  in  them. '' — 
Eph.  ii.  10.  Regenerate  believers,  though  made  to 
forsake  er//-doing,  and  taught  to  abhor  all  notions 
of  meritorious-do'm^.,  are,  nevertheless,  cautioned 
against  nothing-doin^^  and  exhorted  "  not  to  be  wea- 
ry in  ivell-doin^.^^  Gal.  vi. .  9.  Heb.  vi.  11,  12. — 
The  rest  of  believers  is  not  a  rest  of  indolence  ;  for, 
though  made  free  from  the  yoke  of  bondage,  Christ, 
by  whom  we  enjoy  this  freedom,  says  to  us,  Take 
my  yoke  upon  you,  8fc.  Even  our  heavenly  state, 
though  called  a  rest,  will  not  be  a  state  of  suptne- 
ness,  but  of  adoration  and  praise.  Rev.  vii.  15. — 
Of  that  glorioue  rest,  as  well  as  of  our  present  gra- 
cious rest,  the  day  we  hold  sacred,  is  a  delightful 
symbol.  Let  us,  therefore,  spend  it  in  acts  of  lively 
devotion,  and  so  "rejoice  and  be  glad  in  it. "' 

The  consideration  that  the ^r^^  diy  of  the  week  is 
emphatically  the  Lord's  day,  should  constantly  re- 
strain all  rational  persons,  of  whatever  age  or  condi- 
tion, from  making  it  a  day  of  self-gratification. — 
Hence,  let  not  men  of  business  make  it  a  day  of  mer- 
cantile pursuits  ;  let  not  those  who  are  confined  to 
worldly  avocations  during  six  days,  make  it  day, 
cither  of  indolence  or  of  amusement  ;  let  not  the  ava- 
ricious add  it  to  the  days  of  their  labor  or  traffic  ;  let 
not  those  given  to  appetite,  make  it  a  day  of  gormau- 


144  SABBATH    DISCUSSION. 

dizing  at  home  or  abroad  :  let  none  say,  It'is  the  only 
day  we  can  spare  for  visiting  or  receiving  visits — the 
only  day  we  can  call  our  otvn,  to  enjoy  the  pleasures 
and  advantages  of  the  steamboat,  the  car,  or  the 
carriage.  Let  not  even  children  say,  To-day  we 
are  at  liberty,  and  we  will  spend  our  time  in  play  ; 
let  not  servants  and  apprentices  say.  To-day  our 
masters  have  no  control  over  us — we  will  go  where 
we  please,  and  act  as  we  choose  ;  but  on  the  contra- 
ry let  all,  at  every  return  of  this  day,  think  and  say, 
This  is  the  Lord's  day,  and  we  are  required  to  spend 
it  in  his  service.  Moreover,  all  should  consider  that  it 
ig  a  wise  and  kind  provision  divinely  made,  that  du- 
ring one  day  in  seven,  we  might  be  released  from  or- 
dinary avocations,  (not  for  the  purposes  of  sensual  in- 
dulgence,) but  that  we  might,  to  better  advantage,  use 
the  means  appointed  for  our  moral  culture  and  spirit- 
ual edification.  Accordingly,  all  heads  of  families 
should  lessen,  as  much  as  possible,  all  obstructions 
to  such  advantages,  and  use  all  their  influence,  and 
all  their  lawful  authority,  to  bring  all  appertaining  to 
them  under  the  means  of  evangelical  instruction,  as 
at  other  times,  so  especially  on  the  LovcVs  day.  To 
this  end,  they  may  do  much  by  early  training — much 
by  seasonable  and  well-tempered  persuasion;  but 
most  by  a  constant  and  well-ordered  example  :  and 
when  all  these  fail,  even  compulsion,  in  some  instan- 
ces, may  be  justifiable — nay,  advisable  /  I  mean  in 
the  case  of  minors,  whether  children  or  apprentices. 
For  these,  even  the  most  refractory  of  them,  if  re- 
strained from  pursuits  of  amusement  on  the  Lord's 
day,  will,  generally,  rather  go  to  a  religions  meeting, 
than  be  compelled  to  stay  at  home.  There,  are,  in- 
deed, extreme  cases,  in  which  it  is  difficult  to  deter- 
mine what  is  best  to  do.  But  in  this  as  in  other  mat- 
ters, let  every  parent  and  master,  endeavor  to  "keep 


SABBATH    DISCUSSION.  145 

a  conscience  void  of  offense  toward  God  and  man.'' 
Happy  is  that  householder,  who,  like  Joshua,  can 
say,  **  As  for  me  and  my  house  we  will  serve  the 
Lord.  " 

■  Here  it  seems  requsite,  that,  in  some  way,  I  should 
advert  to  the  long  disputed  prerogative  of  civil  gov- 
ernments, to  interpose  their  influence  toward  sup- 
pressing the  profanation,  and  promoting  the  more  gen- 
eral observance  of  the  Lord's  day  This  question, 
much  as  it  has  been  perplexed  by  conflicting  opinions 
and  arguments,  appears  to  me  to  be  susceptible  of  a 
rational  and  scriptural  decision.  At  present,  howev- 
er, I  shall  touch  it  but  lightly  and  briefly. 

Civil  government  is  manifestly  a  divine  institution  ; 
nor  is  it  any  less  evident,  that  civil  rulers,  though 
like  other  men  imperfect,  are  promoted  to  their  re- 
spective stations  by  Divine  Providence:  *' For  pro- 
motion Cometh  neither  from  the  east,  nor  from  the 
west,  nor  from  the  south.  But  God  is  the  Judge  :  ho 
putteth  down  one  and  setteth  up  another.  "  Psal. 
Ixxv.  6.  7.  Accordingly,  "  the  powers  that  be," 
at  any  given  time,  "are  ordained  of  God,"  either  as 
a  blessing  or  a  scourge.  Rom.  xiii.  1.  Now  if  the 
public  observance  of  one  day  in  seven,  as  a  day  of 
rest  from  secular  pursuits  and  of  attendance  on  the 
means  of  religious  instruction,  be  regarded  as  bene- 
ficial to  mankind,  it  must  be  obvious,  that  the  influ- 
ence of  civil  government,  so  far  as  it  serves  to  pro- 
mote such  observance,  must  be  a  providential  favor 
conferred  on  any  nation  or  commonwealth.  That 
such  observance  is  beneficial  to  mankind,  reason  and 
revelation  concur  to  show.  No  competent  naturatist, 
it  is  presumed,  will  deny  that  both  man  and  beast,  by 
ceasing  from  labor  during  one  day  in  seven,  will 
thereby  receive,  weekly,  such  a  renewal  of  vigor 
and  animation,  as  to  bo  enabled  to  perform  the  more 


140  SABBATH    DISCUSSION. 

service,  per  month  or  year.  Neither  will  any  judi- 
cions  moralist,  for  a  moment,  liesitate  to  admit,  that 
the  popular  observance  of  a  weekly  day  of  rest  and 
of  mental  culture,  is  promotive  of  good  morals  in 
any  nation  or  civil  conmmnity.  And  we  know  that 
the  wisest  of  human  kings  has  estimated  the  cliarao- 
ter  of  a  nation  by  its  standard  of  morality  :  Righ- 
teousness, saith  Solomon,  exaltcth  a  nalion. :  hut  sin 
is  a  reproach  to  any  people.     Prov.  xiv.  34. 

Now,  as  all  civilized  nations  (properly  so  called) 
acknowledge  divine  revelation ;  and  as  every  such 
nation,  (because,  a  majority  of  its  inhabitants  pro- 
fess to  believe  the  Christian  religion,)  is  popularly 
styled  *'a  Christian  nation,''  it  seems  proper  that 
the  government  of  every  nation  so  styled,  should  re- 
cognize the  Christian  religion  ;  that  is,  so  far  at  least, 
as  to  acknowledge  its  revealed  authority,  and  to  sanc- 
tion the  observance  of  its  appropriate  and  specified 
dav  of  rest  and  devotion.  Tliis,  however,  should 
not  be  attempted  in  imitation  of  Judaism.  The  Sab- 
bath ^designated  by  the  manna,  and  recognized  by 
the  fourth  commandment,  was,  as  shown  in  my  sec- 
ond Letter,  peculiar,  to  national  Israel.  Therefore, 
neither  th^t  commandment,  nor  any  other  divine  in- 
junction, obliging  the  Israelites  to  observe  the  ifev- 
outh  day,  can,  consistently,  be  so  transferred  to  Gob- 
pel  times,  ^^  ^^  oblige  either  the  Gospel  Church,  or 
Gentile  wor^^>  ^^  obsorvo  either  tho  sanv3  day,  or  any 
other,  as  a  ^^J  *^-'  Treekly  rest  and  devotion,  under 
the  Christian  dispensation.  And  it  has  always  been 
owin?  to  an  oversight  of  this  fact,  when  the  framerg 
of  a  civil  tro''^'^^"'f'"<^"^  ^^^^'®  ^ii"*!^^  ^i^h  it  ''an  estab- 
lishment of  r<?'i2^'^<^°  ''^  ^^"^  producing  a  civil  kingdom 
with  ^'a  ^voHdly  sanctuary  ; '-'  for,  however  suoh 
kingdom  maX  resemble  the  Jowieh  monarohy,  it 
is  inanifestly  inconsisteikt  with  the  kingdom  of  Chrsit  : 


SABBATH     DISCUSSION.  147 

My  kingdom,  saith  He,  is  not  of  this  world.  John 
xviii.  36.  The  Church  of  Christ,  though  in  tho 
world  is  not  o/*  the  world.  John  xv.  19.  But, 
to  tlie  matter  in  question.  Like  the  authority  for  ob- 
serving the  patriarchal  day  of  rest,  the  autliority  for 
observing  the  Lord's  day,  is,  as  shown  in  my  third 
Letter,  wholly  exemplary ;  and  hence,  like  that,  it 
lias  no  civil  penalties  annexed  to  the  neglect  of  the 
institution.  Two  things,  nevertheless,  are  reasona- 
bly and  justly  required  of  every  civil  government, 
in  relation  to  the  Lord's  day. — 1.  That,  at  least  in 
times  of  peace,  it  should  suspend  all  its  public  doings 
and  conveyances  on  that  day,  excepting  only  in  ca- 
ses of  necessity  ;  that  so,  by  examjjle,  it  might  teach 
all  mcorporate  bodies  and  all  indiridual  citizens  to 
do  the  same.  And — 2.  That  it  should  provide,  by 
law,  for  the  peaceable  and  undisturbed  assemblage  of 
all  within  its  jurisdiction,  who  may  choose  to  attend 
the  public  worship  of  God,  at  any  place,  on  the  Lord's 
day  or  at  any  other  time.  Both  these  branches  of 
civil  duty  are  supposed  to  be  authorized  by  the  gov- 
ernment of  these  United  States  for  though  our  Con- 
stitution happily  decides,  that  ''Congress  shall  make 
no  law  respecting  an  establishment  of  religion,"  it 
authorizes  Congress  to  regulate  civil  institutions,  and 
leaves  all  citizens  to  enjoy  liberty  of  conscience. — 
Thus  our  government,  while  in  regard  to  the  obser- 
vance of  the  Lord's  day,  it  v/isely  avo^ds^ compulsion ^ 
allows  its  legislature  fully  to  guaranty  protection. 

It  should  be  recollected,  however,  that  while  th« 
Gospel  dispensation,,  like  the  patriarchal  annexes  no 
civil  penalties  to  the  neglect  or  desecration  of  its 
appropriate  day  of  weekly  rest  and  devotion,  it  leaves 
all  offenders  against  the  institution  liable  to  such 
temporial  judgements  as  God  shall  please  to  inflict 
upon  them,   and  abundantly  shows  that  all  who  di« 


148  SABBATH    DISCUSSION. 

in  impenitence  and  unbelief,  must  under  the  guilt  of 
this  sin,  as  of  all  their  other  sins,  "appear  before  the 
judgement-seat  of  Christ,''  to  receive  the  just  but 
dreadful  sentence,  "Depart  ye  cursed  into  everlas- 
ting fire.''  It  is  an  awful  fact,  too,  that  most  of 
those  who  do  not  religiously  observe  the  Lord's  day, 
do  commonly  profane  it  ; — some,  in  excursions  by 
land  or  water,  under  pretense,  perhaps,  of  seeking 
health — others,  by  resorting  to  places  of  sport  or 
amusement ;  while  many,  too  poor  or  too  penurious  to 
indulge  in  such  expensive  gratifications,  abandon 
themselves  to  the  meaner  vices  of  tippling,  swearing, 
and  ridiculing  religion.  Moreover,  by  neglecting  to 
observe  the  Lord's  day,  they  neglect  his  worship,  and 
treat  with  contempt  "the  Gospel  of  his  grace,  which 
makes  known  the  onlv  remedy  against  our  final  con- 
demnation :  "for  if  we  sin  wilfully,"  that  is  obstin- 
ately persist  therein,  "after  that,"  by  Gospel  report, 
"we  have  received  the  knowledge  of  the  truth,  there 
remaineth  no  more  sacrifice  for  sins  ;  but  a  certain 
fearful  looking  for  of  judgment  and  fiery  indigna- 
tion, which  shall  devour  the  adversaries,"  the  oppo- 
sers  of  truth  and  righteousness.  Let  such  remember 
that  it  will  be  a  "fearful  thing  to  fall  into  the  hands 
of  the  living  God."  See  Heb.    x.  26—31. 

These  letters  are  submitted  to  the  careful  perusal 
and  candid  investigntion  of  all  into  whose  hands  they 
may  come.  Like  every  thing  else  that  I  have  pub- 
lished, they  abound  with  imperfections.  Let  not  the 
reader  however,  impute  all  their  literary  inaccuracies 
tome  ;  for  many  of  these  are  typographical.  Such, 
for  instance,  is  the  -  over  omicron  in  sabbaton,  (nom. 
sing.  ;)  whereby  it  has  the  same  quantity  as  omega  in 
sabbaton,  the  gen.  pi.  ;  also  the  use  of  the  word  town 
instead  of  ter7n,  both  of  which  occur  in  Letter  ix. 

A  word  to  my  worthy  correspondent. — Understan- 


SABBATH     DISCUSSION.  149 

ding,  brother  Maxson,  that  you  and  your  friends  have 
thought  it  unfair  that  my  letters  ha^^e  been  pub- 
lished while  yours  have  been  withheld,  I  feel  it 
to  be  due  to  the  editor  to  say,  that  the  blame,  if 
any,  is  not  to  be  attributed  to  him,  but  to  me.  Hav- 
ing, at  the  commencement  of  my  third  letter,  observ- 
ed, that  it  was  not  my  design  to  prosecute  a  dispute 
with  you,  but  to  lay  my  views  of  the  the  sabbatic  in- 
stitution before  the  public,  the  editor  [then  brother 
Crosby]  justly  considered  that  an  immediate  reply 
from  you  to  each  of  my  letters  was  not  called  for, 
especially  as  most  of  what  I  was  then  writing,  had 
no  direct  bearing  on  the  matter  of  difference  between 
us.  Besides  in  consultation  with  the  editor  we  agreed 
that  it  was  best  for  me  to  proceed,  without  interrup- 
tion, to  the  end  of  what  I  had  to  say,  that  you  might 
then  in  like  manner  and  to  better  advantage,  re- 
spond ;  having  all  my  letters  before  you.  When 
brother  Going  resumed  the  editorship  of  the  paper, 
he  was  dissatisfied  with  the  course  taken,  and  wished 
to  insert  your  letters  ;  but  on  hearing  my  reasons  in 
favor  of  continuing  the  course  adopted,  he  consen- 
ted ;  admitting,  as  brother  Crosby  had  done,  that  it 
was  the  best  course,  to  avoid  the  appearance  and 
effect  of  a  controversy  between  brethren,  and  the  most 
likely  way  to  confine  us  both  to  the  subject  under  dis- 
cussion. Nor  did  I,  or  either  of  the  editors,  suppose 
that  it  would  take  me  half  so  long  as  it  has,  to  arrive 
at  a  conclusion.  But  such  have  been  my  other  avo- 
cations, at  home  and  abroad,  that  I  could  be  no  more 
expeditious. 

The  inconveniences  which  you  and  your  whole  fra- 
ternity are  under,  by  reason  of  your  sentiments  in 
relation  to  the  Sabbath,  are  such  as  convince  me  that 
you  act,  in  this  matter,  conscientiously.  Neverthe- 
less, as  conscience  itself  is  greatly  governed  by  ed- 
j 


150  SABBATH    DISCUSSION. 


ucation  and  habit,  you  should  recollect  that  we  may 
be  conscientiously  wrong.  See  Acts  xxiii.  1,  and 
sxxvi.  i) — 11. 

The  editor  of  the  American  edition  of  Burn&ide,  a» 
I  learn  trom  bis  letter  to  brother  Crosby,  felt  griev- 
ed at  my  imputing  to  him  a  mistake  made  in  your 
first  letter  to  me.  If  lie  was  not  the  author  of  the 
note  to  which  I  referred,  he,  of  course,  stands  ac- 
quitted ; — the  note  must  be  attributed  to  Mr.  Burnside 
himself.  And  if  the  information  upon  which  you 
misquoted  Dr.  Lightfoot,  was  not  derived  from  that 
note,  perhaps  you  can  teil  whence  you  did  derive  it. 

Your  brother,  the  editor  of  a  paper  at  Shencctady, 
is  entitled  to  my  sincere  thrnks,  for  correcting  a  mis- 
take I  made  in  my  first  letter,  in  regard  to  the  time 
of  Paul's  complaint  against  Peter. 

Satisfied  as  I  may  be,  that  my  views  of  the  subject 
discussed  in  these  letters,  are,  in  the  main,  correct, 
I  do  not  forget  that  Solomon  hath  said,  He  that  is  first 
in  his  oton  cause  seemeth  just  ;  hut  his  neighbor  com", 
cth  and  searcketh  him.  I  expect  therefore  that  you 
will  search  me  ;  trying  all  my  positions  and  argu- 
ments by  divine  revelation.  And  when  you  shall 
have  done  so,  if  any  thing  shall  appear  in  the  fruit 
of  your  labors,  which  is  not  anticipated  in  these  let- 
ters, and  considered  as  needing  a  further  supply,  I 
will  by  divine  permission  endeavor  to  answer  it. 

As  my  labors  have  occupied  so  much  time,  you 
probably  are  ready  to  publish  a  letter  every  week,  till 
you  get  through.  Indeed,  if  you  should  think  all  my 
letters  to  be,  as  your  brother  thought  my  first  was, 
that  is,  "extremely  vulnerable,"  your  task  must  be 
extremely  easy.  Wishing  you  every  blessing,  tem- 
poral and  spiritual,  I  conclude. 

Your  friend  and  fellow  servant  in  the  Lord, 

WM.  PARKINSON. 


LETTER  XV. 


To  THE  Rev.   William  Parkinson. 

November  Q,  1835- 

Sir, — It  was  not  till  I  saw  a  notice  in  the  American 
Baptist,  that  1  was  apprized  of  the  arrangement  respec- 
ting our  correspondence  ;  but  I  am  satisfied  that  you 
should  have  an  opportunity  of  laying  your  views  of 
the  sabbatic  institution  before  the  public  without  inter- 
ruption. My  last  two  letters  were  forwarded  to  the 
office  before  1  was  acquainted  with  your  design. 

The  subject  matter  of  this  discussion  is  in  my  es- 
timation, of  great  importance  to  the  Church.  She 
ought  as  a  body,  and  all  her  members  respectively, 
well  and  properly  to  understand  the  mind  of  Christ 
on  the  subject  in  question  ;  for  it  is  for  his  honor  and 
glory,  as  well  as  for  the  interest  of  every  Christian, 
that  all  things  pertaining  to  the  kingdom  of  Christ, 
should  be  done  in  perfect  accordance  with  his  will. 
Discussion  I  believe  to  be  useful  ;  and,  on  the  sub- 
ject between  us,  necessary  in  order  "that  we  may  all 
speak  the  same  thing,  and  that  there  be  no  divisions 
among  us,  and  that  we  may  be  perfectly  joined  to- 
gether in  the  same  mind,  and  in  the  same  judgment.*' 
1.  Cor.  i.  10.  I  concur  with  you  in  wishing  to  avoid  the 
appearance  and  too  frequent  effect  of  controversy 
j2 


152  SABBATli    DISCUSSION. 

between  brethren  ;  and  shall  therefore  as  briefly  as  I 
conveniently  can,  give  you  my  opinion  on  the  subject 
before  us,  and  endeavor  to  meet  the  objections  you 
have  presented,  as  I  come  to  them. 

Having  in  my  third  letter  shown  that  the  sabbatic 
instituti<jn  recorded  in  Gen.  ii.  2,  3. — was  of  a  moral 
character,  although  the  appointment  of  the  seventh 
day  was  positive,  and  therefore  might  be  repealed  by 
proper  authority  :  and  that  the  sabbatic  law  recorded 
in  Ex.  \x.  8 — 11,  was  founded  upon,  and  framed  in 
perfect  accordance  with  its  original  institution  ;  I 
proceeded  in  my  last  letter  to  show  the  adaptation  of 
this  precept,  with  the  Sabbath  it  enjoins,  to  the  whole 
family  of  man  ;  and  that  it  was  not  restricted,  nor 
made  peculiar  to  national  Israel.  When  penning  this 
iet'cr  I  was  not  apprized  of  the  course  you  have 
subsequcntiy  taken  in  regard  to  this  point.  When 
you  asserted  that  "  the  Sabbath  of  the  fourth 
commandment'^  was  peculiar  to  national  Israel,  I 
verily  thought  you  intended  to  be  understood  as 
speaking  of  the  seventh  day.  But  if  I  now  under- 
stand what  you  have  stated  in  your  sixth  letter, 
("July  17,)  you  mean  it  was  peculiar  to  them  only  in 
regard  to  the  manner  of  its  observance.  I  think  howev- 
er the  terms  you  used  in  your  first  letter  (January  30) 
warranted  me  in  understanding  you  as  1  have  stated. 
You  have  there  considered  the  observance  of  the 
tlie  seventh  day  under  the  Gospel  dispensation,  deci^ 
dedly  anH-evangelical.  But  if  by  "^Ae  ohservance  of 
t.hg  seventh  daip  you  have  only  intended  the  peculiar 
manner  in  which  the  Jews  were  required  to  observe 
it,  \  might  have  spared  you  the  trouble  of  reading  a 
reply  to  your  arguments  in  support  of  your  po- 
sition ;  for  I  fully  agree  with  you,  that  the  Christian 
Church  is  not  required  to  observe  a  Jewish   Sabbatli, 


SABBATH     DISCUSSION. 


153 


The  sabbatic  institution  being  thus  relieved  of  the 
of  the  incumbrance  of  Jewish    severities,  penalties, 
and  ceremonies,  it  is  for  any  thing  that   I    have  yet 
seen,  adapted  to  the  moral  and  religious  wants  of  the^ 
Christian  dispensation.      It  is,  with  the  institution  of 
marriage,  unlike  ail  subsequent  institutions.      It    was 
instituted  by  the  appointtnent  of  the    seventh   day  in 
its    weeidy  returns,  as    you    admit,    immediately   at 
the  close  of  God's    creative   operations,   while   man 
was  in  a  state  of  innocence,  and,  as  it  was   made  fot 
man,  (Mirk  ii.  27)  it  must  have  been  adapted   to  his 
circumstances.      In  the  several  dispensations  anterior 
to  the  Jewish,  although   the   moral   aspect   of  human 
affairs  h^cd  become  changed  ;   man  having  fallen   and 
become  exceedingly  wicked,  and  in  these  dispensations 
the  instituted  ordinmces  of  worship  were  probably  wide- 
ly diversified  and  difFaied  much  from  those  subsequent- 
ly given  to  national  Israel  :  still   the   same   day   was 
deemed  by  the  all  wise  Legislator  of  all  dispensations 
the  most  suitable  season  for  weekly  rest  and  devotion. 
The  Sabbath  thus   viewed,   although  observed    upon 
the  same  day  in  its  weekly    return,     derives  its    dis- 
pensative  appellation    from  the    rites  enjoined    upon 
it  by  the  several   dispensations  in    which    it  is  used. 
Thus  the  Sabbath,  as  observed  in  the  worship  of  God 
by  our  first  narents  before  their    fall,    was   the    para- 
disaical Sabbath— from  that  to  the  flood,  the    antedi.lw 
vian  Sabbath,   Observed  as  it  undoubtedly  was,  by  the 
saints  in  the  patriarchal  age   it    was    the   patriarchal 
Sabbath.       Consequently,    when    the   same    seventh 
day,  in  its  weekly    returns,   was    observed    with    the 
ordinances  of  the  Jewish  worship,  it  was    the    Jewish 
Sabbath.      In   like   manner,    when    observed    in   the 
Gospel  dispensation  w^ith  the  ordinances  of  the  Chris- 
tian religion,  it   is  the    Christian    Sabbath,    unless  it 
shall   appear    that    God   has  formally   abrogated    it 


IM  SABBATH    DISCUSSION. 

by  repealing  the  sabbatic  law  that  instituted  it.  If  he 
hasthe  New  Testament  must  contain  the  repealing  act. 

The  Sabbath  in  itsinstitution,  was  not  typical  of  any 
subsequent  event  or  circumstance  resulting  t>om  the 
fall,  or  the  introduction  of  the  Gospel,  as  I  think  eve- 
ry person  must  admit  since  sin  had  no  existence  in  the 
world  when  it  was  instituted.  Nor  does  the  pen  of 
inspiration  so  represent  it  to  my  understanding,  and 
I  think  to  no  other  person,  with  sufficient  clearness 
to  authorize  him  in  deciding  against  its  present  va- 
lidity. It  may  be  assumed,  that  the  Sabbath  was 
typical  of  the  rest  of  Canaan,  and  of  the  gospel  dis- 
pensation, or  of  the  seventh  and  last  thousand  years 
of  the  world,  or  millenium ;  but  when  it  is  recollec- 
ted that  God  has  not  authorized  these  assumptions, 
they  should  be  considered  merely  as  visionary.  But, 
were  these  positions  authorized  by  inspiration,  still  as 
it  is  admitted  and  with  scriptural  propriety,  that  the 
weekly  seventh  day's  rest  is  typical  of  the  more  glori- 
ous rest  of  the  saints,  after  death,  in  the  paradise  of 
God.IIeb.  iv.  9  ;  from  which  appears  the  adapta- 
tion of  the  Sabbath  to  the  Gospel  dispensation  ;  as 
its  typical  uses  have  not  all  yet  been  accomplished, 
and  will  not  be  till  the  last  Saint  shall  sabbatize  with 
Christ  in  his  father's  kingdom. 

I  concur  in  your  remarks  upon  the  applicability  of 
he  Sabbath  to  be  difleient  meridians  and  hemispheres 
of  the  earth,  in  you  fourth  letter,  (June  5,)  and  also 
in  your  views  of  the  identity  of  the  seventh  day  of 
the  original  institution,  with  that  enjoined  in  the  fourth 
commandment,  as  stated  in  your  hfth  letter,  (June 
19.)  In  connection  with  your  observations,  I  will 
add  in  evidence  of  their  correctness  that  the  sev- 
enth day  of  the  Jews,  appears  to  have  been  very  ex- 
tensively known  and  respected  by  the  most  ancient 
Gentile    nations.       Josephus    against  Aplon,   b.    ii., 


SABBATH     DISCUSSION.  155 

says  :  * 'There  is  not  a  city  of  tlie  Grecians,  nor  any 
of  the  Barbarians,  nor  any  nation  wliatsoever, 
whither  our  custom  of  resting  on  the  seventh 
day  hath  not  come.''  Philo,  as  quoted  by  Grotius, 
in  his  Truth  of  the  Christian  Religion,  remarks,  con- 
cerning the  seventh  day,  "It  is  a  festival  celebrated 
not  only  in  one  city  or  country  ;  but  throughout  the 
whole  world."  He  quotes  Homer  and  CalUmachus, 
to  the  same  effect.  And  alsoSuetoniub,  in  his  Sibeiius, 
as  saying  that  "Diogenes  used  to  dispute  at  Rhodes  on 
the  tSabbath."  And  "Theophilus  Antiochenus,  to 
Antolychus  concerning  the  seventh  day,  which  is 
to  distinguished  by  all  men.*'  And  adds,  "That  the 
memory  of  the  seventh  day's  work  was  preserved  not 
only  among  the  Greeks  and  Italians,  by  honoring  the 
seventh  day,  but  also  among  tlie  Celts  and  Indians, 
who  all  measured  the  time  by  weeks."  This  is  af- 
firmed by  other  authors  of  the  Assyrians,  Egyp- 
tians, Arabians,  Romans,  Gauls,  Britons  and  Ger- 
mans. 

Nov/,  when  it  is  considered  how  widely  scattered 
over  the  earth  these  nations  were,  and  that  in  the  age 
referred  to  but  little  or  no  intercourse  was  had  among 
the  most  of  them,  the  reader  will  readily  discover  the 
difficulty  of  accounting  for  this  remarkable  agreement 
in  their  sentiments  and  practice  relative  to  the  seventh 
day  upon  any  other  hypothesis  than  that  of  the  ear'y 
institution  of  the  Sabbath.  For  it  cannot  be  supposed 
that  the  Jews,  who  v*^ere  generally  hated  and  whose 
religious  peculiarities  were  despised,  could  have 
given  a  religious  custom  to  the  whole  world,  and  this, 
too,  in  a  period  when  their  nation  was  in  its  minori- 
ty. The  only  rational  and  natural  conclusion  is, 
that  the  division  of  time  into  weeks,  together  with 
the  knowledge  of  the  Sabbath,  was  handed  down  to 
them  by  Noah  and  his  family,  and  thus    spread  with 


156 


SABBATH    DISCUSSION. 


the  increasing  and  spreading  population  of  the  earth. 
I  will  further  add,  that  there  appears  to  have  been  an 
entire  uniformity  among  all  nations  in  regard  to  the 
beginning  and  ending  of  the  week.  That  is,  the  sev- 
enth day  of  the  week  among  the  Gentiles  uniformly 
corresponding  with  the  seventh  day  of  the  Jews. 
The  reader  will  also  see  that  these  citations  support 
the  remarks  I  made  in  my  last  letter  to  you,  showing 
that  the  Sabbath  Day  of  the  fourth  commandment 
was  not  peculiar    to  the  nation  of  the  Jews. 

^  1  think  we  are  now  agreed  that  the  seventh  day 
(if  this  term  is  more  acceptable  to  you  than  the  Sab- 
bath,) of  the  fourth  commandment  was  obligatory  on 
all  the  Gentile  world  at  the  time  the  law  was  given, 
as  well  as  on  the  Jews,  and  this  is  settling  an  important 
point.  I  fit  should  be  supposed  they  were  ignorant 
of  their  duty  in  this  respect  :  still  they  were  as  inex- 
cusable in  this,  as  they  were  for  their  neglect  of  other 
religious  duties,  of  which  they  are  supposed  to  have 
been  ignorant.  It  is  not  probable  that  they  would  re- 
tain an  accurate  knowledge  of  its  duties,  when  they 
had  lost  the  knowledge  of  true  religion  in  other  re- 
spects. What  God  had  made  their  duty,  however, 
still  remained  their  duty,  and  this  could  not  be  affec- 
ted by  giving  the  law  to  the  Jewish  nation.  But  I  see 
no  good  reason  for  objections  to  the  Sabbath  of  the 
fourth  commandment,  rather  than  to  the  Pafriarchal 
Sabbath.  You  admit  that  the  seventh  day,  in  its  week- 
ly returns,  was  the  same,  and  it  has  not  been  shown 
that  the  restrictions  of  the  former  were  more  severe 
than  that  of  the  latter  ;  or  that  there  was  any  es- 
sential difference  between  them.  If,  as  you  say,  the 
original  Sabbath  was  promulgated  ;  not  by  com- 
mandment ;  but  bv  example,  and  that  its  duties  were 
to  be  learnt  by  the  example  of  God  in  his  resting  on 
that  day,  from  all  his  works  ;  the   example    in    this 


SABBATH    DISCUSSION.  157 

case  must  be  the  rule  and  measure  of  the  duty  re- 
quired. He  rested  on  the  seventh  day  from  all  his 
work,  Gen.  ii.  2,  3.  This  entire  rest,  then,  was  en- 
joined by  his  example,  which  is  precisely  the  duty  en- 
joined by  the  fourth  commandment,  Ex.  xx.  10.  And 
we  may  learn  the  nature  of  this  restriction  by  our 
Lord's  exposition  of  the  subject  in  Malt.  xii.  1 — 13. 
Luke  iv.  9,  and  several  other  pk^-ces,  from  which  texts 
with  their  connections;  it  appears  that  it  was  lawful 
to  do  good  on  the  Sabbath  day  ;  or,  in  other  words, 
the  performance  of  such  work  as  is  dictated  by  mer- 
cy, or  necessity,  is  in  accordance  with  the  spirit  and 
design  of  the  fourth  commandment.  This  was  more 
probably  the  design  of  our  Lord  in  his  instructions  on 
this  subject,  then  as  you  suppose,  viz.  to  teach  that 
the  restrictions  of  the  commandment  might  be  infrin- 
ged with  impunity,  on  account  of  its  richly  and  ex- 
piring state.  No  child  of  God  can  complain  of  the 
injunction  to  '•''Itememher  the  Sabbath  day  to  keep  it 
holy.'' 

From  the  foregoing  illustrations  it  appears  that 
the  Sabbath  derived  no  new  character  or  qualification 
from  the  fourth  commandment.  And  that  subsequent 
instructions  and  prohibitions  given  to  Israel  directly  by- 
Moses,  as  well  as  the  corporal  penalties  of  its  viola- 
tions, which,  in  some  particulars  were  limited  to  the 
circumstances  of  the  Jews  while  in  the  Wilderness,  and 
which  are  not  known  in  the  fourth  commandment,  are 
what  constituted  it  the  Jewish  Sabbath.  It  is  also 
evident  that  the  Sabbath  as  enjoined  in  the  fourth 
commandment  was  not  peculiar  to  national  Israel,  of 
which  1  think  you  will  be  satisfied  upon  perusing  these 
remarks.  You  are  aware  of  the  hazardous  situa- 
tion in  which  the  sentiment  which  I  have  been  labor- 
ing to  correct  is  placed,  by  the  view  we  have  taken 
of  the  subject,  and   have  anticipated   me    as   saying, 


168  SABBATH    DISCUSSION. 

what  every  intelligent,  unbiased  person,  who  has  ex- 
amined this  subject,  must  be  constrained  to  say,  name- 
ly, that  the  seventh  day  originally  appointed  the  Sab- 
bath, divested  of  its  Jewish  peculiarities,  remains 
still  the  Sabbath  unless  abrogated  by  proper  author- 
ity. 

The  fitness  of  this  day   to  the   solemnities  of   the 
Christian  religion,  I  must  defer  to  my  next. 

I  remain  yours  in  the  Lord, 
W.  B.  MAXSON. 


LETTER    XVI. 


To  TiiE  Rev.  Wm.  Parki?.\sox. 

November  13,  1835. 
Dear  Brother, — I  come  now,  as  I  proposed  in  my 
last,  to  consider  the  seventh  day  as  a  proper  sea- 
son for  the  worsliip  and  solemnities  of  the  Christian 
religion.  I  v/ish  however,  to  notice,  in  the  first  place, 
the  objections  you  have  proposed  to  this  in  your 
sixth  letter,  (July  17.)  The  pleasing  and  exulting 
recollections  to  which  you  have  called  my  attention, 
respecting  the  pie  eminence  of  our  divine  Master  Je- 
sus Christ  over  Moses — the  Gospel  dispensation  over 
the  Mosaic — and  the  priesthood  and  sacrifice  of  Christ 
over  those  which  were  under  the  Levitical  law,  I 
hope  ever  to  delight  in,  as  must  all  true  believers  in 
Christ.  But  I  do  not  see  what  bearing  they  have 
upon  the  subject  before  us.  That  the  Gospel  dispen- 
sation, compared  with  that  of  Moses,  is  new  and  pre- 
eminent, I  grant.  And  also,  that  all  the  institutions 
particularly  pertaining  to  it  are  new — that  is,  they 
must  be  iristituted  by  the  authority  of  Christ,  as  head 
of  the  Church  ;  the  ministration  of  the  JVord,  of 
Baj)tism,  and  of  the  Lord/s  Sitppei',  are  doubtless  the 
most  prominent  ;  but  these  affect  not  the  subject  in 
hand.     Tlio   Christian    dispensation    has,    indeed,   a 


160 


SABBATH    DISCUSSIOX. 


new  Sabbatli,  endowed  as  it  is,  with  the  worship  and 
ordinances  of  the  Christian  religion,  in  the  same  sense 
that  the  ministration  of  the  Gospel  is  new.  But  the 
preaching  of  the  Gospel  is,  in  fact,  as  ancient  as  the 
fail  of  man,  and  it  has  been  published  in  every  dis- 
pensation in  such  manner,  and  by  such  symbols,  as 
God  saw  fit  to  appoint  ;  but  the  authorized  change 
which  took  place  in  the  manner  of  publishing  it  in 
the  Christian  dispensation,  emphatically  entitled  it  to 
the  appellation  of  a  new  institution.  Had  the  Sab- 
bath i)cen  originally  designed  for,  and  limited  to  na- 
tional Israel,  it  would  have  been  contained  in  the  hand- 
writing of  ordinances,  (Col.  ii.  14)  and  consequently 
abolished  with  it.  Whatever  there  was  in  the  Sab- 
bath ])eculiar  to  that  people,  or  the  Mosaic  dispensa- 
tion, I  agree  was  abolished.  The  Jeurish  Sabbath 
was  abolished — but  the  patriarchal  Sabbath,  which 
was  the  same  with  the  original  institution,  as  written 
in  the  fourth  commandment,  remained,  as  well  as  the 
other  precepts  with  which  God  associated  it. 

You  suppose  the  seventh  day  can,  with  no  possible 
propriety,  commemorate  the  work  of  redemption,  al- 
though it  might  still  serve  as  a  memorial  of  creation  ; 
and  that  both  these  events  could  not  be  so  properly 
commemorated  on  any  other  day  as  the  first  day  of 
the  week. 

I  will  presently  notice  the  reasons  you  assign  ;  but 
wish  fi  -st  to  observe,  that  it  is  not  the  day  itself,  but 
the  duties  to  which  it  is  devoted,  that  waken  recol- 
lections to  divine  subjects  in  the  Christian's  mind. — 
In  the  absence  of  some  conclusive  indication  of  the 
divine  will,  we  should  be  naturally  led  to  concludo 
that  the  day  which  was  originally  designed  as  a  sea- 
son for  innocent  beings  to  commune  with  God,  and 
learn  his  will,  and  subsequently,  for  guilty  men  to 
remember  their  Creator,  call  his  works  to  mind,  and 


SABBATH     DISCUSSION'.  161 

ssek  his  blessing,  and,  as  you  suppose,  to  remind  tho 
Hebrews  of  their  deliverance  from  bondage,  that  God 
designed  (t  as  the  most  proper  season  in  which  all 
his  works  of  creation^  provideiice,  and  grace  should 
be  brought  to  mmd.  But,  if  this  day  cannot  be  a 
proper  memento  of  the  latter  work,  because  it  was 
not  originuUy  appointed  for  this  purpose,  the  same 
difficulty  mustattend  the  observance  of  the  first  day  of 
the  week  ;  for  upon  this  ground,  it  could  not  be  a  fit 
reason  to  commemorate  the  work  of  creation.  And, 
if  it  require,  as  you  believe  as  well  as  myself,  that  the 
time  must  be  divinely  appointed  to  make  it  a  proper 
memento  of  either, the  Sabbath  has  certainly  the 
strongest  claims  to  religious  distinction.  The  ground 
taken  here  by  those  who  contend  for  the  unfitness  of 
the  Sabbath  for  Gospel  purposes,  is  assumed  and 
maintained  only  in  opposition  to  facts,  as  well  as  rev- 
elation. The  Christain  Church,  worshipping  on  the 
Sabbath  do,  for  oughttheir  opponents  can  say  to  the 
contrary,  enjoy  as  much  of  the  divine  presence,  and 
take  as  much  pleasure  in  Gospel  institutions,  when 
thus  engaged,  as  those  who  observe  the  succeeding 
day.     But  1  come  to  your  reasons  : 

1.  As  a  reason  for  the  peculiar  fitness  of  the  first 
day  of  the  week  for  this  two-fold  purpose,  you  ob- 
s<3rve  that  "  it  is  ejiiTphaticaUy  the  creation-day.^^  It 
is,  indeed,  true  that  God,  in  the  beginning,  or  on  tho 
first  day  of  time,  did  create  the  chaotic  mass,  which 
was  subsequently  arranged  and  put  in  order,  of  which 
the  vegetable  and  animal  kingdoms  were  subsequent- 
ly  made  ;  but  it  could  scarcely  be  said  to  be  a  world. 
If  it  were  proper  for  men  to  appoint  a  season  to  com- 
memorate distinctivehj  the  respective  productions  of  the 
divine  Word,  chaos  might  be  celebrated  on  the  first 
day  of  the  week,  this  being  all  that  was  created  on  this 
day.     By  reasoning  thus,  however,  the  analogy  be- 


162  SABBATH    DISCUSSION. 

t^veen  the  two  appointments  of  a  day  of  commemora- 
tion is  lost  in  seleciing  the  first  effort  of  God  in  crea- 
tioih  and  what  is  generally  supposed  to  be  the  last 
ill  redonption.  Besides,  God  has  decided  the  first 
day  of  the  week  to  be  the  most  unfit  season  that  could 
be  appointed  to  commemorate  any  of  his  creative  op- 
erations, by  appointing  the  seventh  and  last  day  of 
the  week  for  this  purpose.  This  day  was  created  a 
Sabbath,  and  God  has  ever  claimed  the  entire  sove- 
reignty over  it.  See  Is.  Iviii.  13.  Mark  ii.  28.  This 
plea  for  the  observance  of  the  first  day  was  as  good 
in  the  first  age  of  the  world  as  it  ever  has  been  since, 
and  seems  to  be  an  impeachment  of  the  discernment 
of  the  all  v/ise  Creator,  for  not  selecting  it  at  first  for 
the  weekly  day  of  rest,  instead  of  the  seventh.  I  do 
not  mean  to  charge*  my  venerable  correspondent  with 
originally  making  this  irreverent  suggestion.  The 
first  to  whom  I  recollect  seeing  it  ascribed,  was  Jus- 
tin Martyr,  who  offered  it  as  a  a  reason,  in  want  of 
a  better,  for  paying  some  religious  distinction  to  Sun- 
day, as  he  termed  it.  In  short,  if  the  first  day  of 
the  week  have  any  divine  warrant  for  its  observance 
in  the  New  Testament,  it  needs  no  help  on  this  ac- 
count. 

2.  Another  reason  you  assign  for  the  distinction 
here  claimed  for  the  observance  of  the  first  day  is, 
that  *'?7  was  validly  the  day  of  redemption  ''  I  shall 
have  occasion  to  notice  your  remarks  under  this  head 
more  particuhrly  on  considering  your  seventh  letter. 
A.t  present  I  Wvould  remark,  that  if  it  were  granted, 
that  not  only  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  but  all  the 
remarkable  events  said  to  have  taken  place  on  this 
day,  actually  occurred  upon  it,  they  could  not  have 
rendered  it  the  most  proper  season  of  Christian  woi'- 
»hip  without  a  divine  aj-p ointment  to  this  effect. — 
Now,   as  none  of  those  events  are  mentioned  as  giv- 


SABBATH    DISCUSSION.  163 

ing  importance  to  the  day  on  v/hich  they  occurred,  by 
any  of  the  inspired  writers,  we  certainly  can  have 
no  assurance  that  the  day  was  esteemed  by  them  on 
account  of  those  events.  But  more  upon  this  point 
hereafter. 

3.  I  shall  now  notice  your  third  reason  for  consider- 
ing the  first  day  of  the  week  the  most  proper  day  on 
which  to  commemorate  the  two  great  events — Crea- 
tion  and  Redemi^tlon.  You  observe  ^'tltat  on  this  day 
of  the  week,  the  manna  begoji  io  fall.'^  I  v>'ould  here 
ask,  Iiow  are  we  to  know  this  to  be  the  case  ?  The 
only  record  which  may  be  relied  upon,  v/hich  can 
give  us  any  knowledge  of  this  event,  is  found  in  Ex. 
xvi.  22.  The  sixth  day  mentioned  here  may  not  be 
intended  as  the  sixth  day  in  succession  after  the  man- 
na began  to  fall ;  for  the  record  is  not  particular  in 
relating  how  many  mornings  they  had  gathered  it 
during  that  week.  As  the  sixth  day  there  mentioned, 
was  the  sixth  day  of  the  week  :  1  am  inclined  to  the 
opinion  that  it  is  mentioned  only  as  such.  The  opin- 
ions of  Robbins  and  Commentators,  who  have  no 
better  method  of  knowing  the  truth  than  we  have,  are 
of  very  little  weight  in  determining  this  matter.  Your 
demonstration  of  this  subject  in  your  5th  letter  (Juno 
19)  throws  but  very  little  light  upon  the  point  in  ques- 
tion. The  main  thing  is  assumed,  viz  :  that  the  manna 
began  to  fall  on  the  first  day  of  the  week  :  it  is  there- 
fore a  matter  of  uncertainty.  Nor  can  1  discover 
the  propriety  of  your  conclusion,  that  the  Jews, 
while  in  Egypt,  had  entirely  lost  the  arrangement  of 
the  week.  It  would  seem  incredable,  that  an  Insti- 
tution like  the  so  Sabbath,  universally  knoinv  in  th-a 
world  from  remote  antiquity,  and  the  tradition  of 
it  at  least,  retained  to  a  period  subsequently  to  tho 
bondage  of  the  Hebrews  in  Egypt,  could  have  been 
forgotten  by  that  entire  nation  alone  ;  for  even  tho 


164  SABBATH     DISCUSSION. 

Egyptians,  their  tyrannical  masters,  possessed  the 
knowledge  of  the  Sabbath.  I  think  the  citations  in 
my  last  kitter,  places  this  suijjcct  beyond  all  legitimate 
scruples.  It  is  therefore  altogether  an  assumption 
that  God  made  known  to  the  Jews  the  beginning  and 
ending  of  the  week  by  the  falling  of  manna.  The 
withholding  it  on  the  seventh  day  seems  not  to  have 
been  to  inform  themv/hen  the  Sabbath  occurred  ;  for 
they  knew  this,  as  fully  appears  by  their  gathering 
a  double  portion  of  manna  on  the  sixth  day.  This 
divine  arrangement  of  the  manna  was  evidently  made 
to  prevent  there  being  any  necessity  for  laboring  on 
the  Sabbath,  in  gathering  it.  Nor  do  I  think  that  the 
reference  in  the  sixth  chapter  of  John,  to  the  manna 
which  fell  in  the  wilderness  affords  any  advantage  to 
to  the  lirst  day.  If  the  manna  is  considered  here  a 
type  of  Christ,  it  is  very  faintly  done  ;  and  so  con- 
sidered, merely  from  the  Jews  mentioning  the  cir- 
cumstances of  their  fathers  eating  manna  in  the  wil- 
derness ;  and  our  Lord  improved  the  occassion,  by 
stating  to  them,  that  he  was  the  living  bread  that 
came  down  from  Heaven.  There  may  be  something 
in  the  manna  symbolical  of  Gospel  grace.  It  is  also 
called  in  Ps.  xxviii.  25,  '-'-angels  food^'^  which  is  by 
no  means  calculated  to  strengthen  the  symbolic 
signification  you  have  given  it ;  for  it  is  not  on 
Christ,  as  a  crucified  Saviour,  that  angels  live,  as  do 
the  redeemed  among  men  :  and  the  generation  which 
partook  of  the  first  falling  of  the  manna,  was  cut  off 
from  the  grace  of  Christ  by  unbelief.  No  inference 
can  therefore,  be  allowed  in  favor  of  the  first  day, 
from  the  falling  of  manna.  [See  close  of  the  letter.] 
1  will  mention  one  more  objection  brought  against 
the  fitness  of  the  Sabbath,  as  a  proper  season  for 
Christian  worship  by  Dr.  Dwight  ;  not  on  account 
of  any  allusion  had  to  it  in   any    of    your    remarks; 


SABBATH    DISCUSSION.  165 

but  because  I  wish  to  meet  fairly  whatever  is  sug- 
gested as  a  difficulty  to  what  I  understand  to  be  a 
Christian  duty.  The  objection  I  refer  to,  is  drawn 
from  Matt.  ix.  15.  "  Can  the  children  of  the  bride- 
chamber  mourn  as  long  as  the  bridegroom  is  with 
them  ;  but  the  days  will  come,  whem  the  bridegroom 
shall  be  taken  from  them,  and  then  shall  they  fast.  '^ 
The  ingenious  author  states  that  Christ  vras  crucified 
on  Friday,  at  the  close  of  which  he  was  taken  from 
the  children  of  the  bride-chamber,  that  is,  from  the 
disciples.  Throughout  the  Sabbath  he  lay  in  the 
grave,  and  on  the  first  day  of  the  week  he  was  restor- 
ed to  them  again.  His  method  of  managing  this  text 
go  as  to  bear  against  the  Sabbath  is  this  ;  that  the 
seventh  day  became,  by  the  absence  of  Christ  from 
his  disciples,  the  proper  season  for  fasting  ;  but  that 
the  Sabbath  was  from  the  beginning,  a  festival,  and 
designed  so  to  be  to  the  Christian  Church.  Fasting, 
therefore,  he  says,  can  never  accord  with  the  origi- 
nal and  universal  design,  and  concludes  that  this  day 
is  altogether  improper  for  commemorating  with  glad- 
ness, the  work  of  redemption.  Although  this  argu- 
ment may  be  considered  plausible,  it  is  a  deceitful 
one — a  mere  logical  artifice.  It  proceeds  upon  the 
ground  that  the  Saviour  was  taken  from  the  disciples 
on  the  weekly  Sabbath  ;  whereas,  he  was  taken  away 
from  them,  very  early  on  the  the  day  previous  to  the 
great  Sabbath  of  the  Passover,  let  it  have  fallen  on 
whatever  day  of  the  week  it  may.  Again,  he  will 
have  it  that  he  was  absent  from  his  disciples  but  one 
day,  although  his  absence  from  them  embraced  a 
period  of  not  less  than  three.  His  argument  supposes 
the  following  first  day,  to  be  a  day  of  joy  and  glad- 
ness, on  account  of  the  Saviour's  resurrection  ;  but 
the  whole  day,  even  until  the  evening,  was  a  season 
of  the  deepest  gloom,  fearing  for  their    personal  safe- 


166  8ABBATH    DISCUSSION. 

ty  and  doubting  as  to  the  resurrection.  Again,  the 
argument  supposes  that  every  succeeding  first  day 
was  kept  as  a  holy  festival,  and  every  Sabbath  a 
day  of  humiliation  and  fasting  —  a  sentiment  at  vari- 
ance with  facts,  and  the  avowed  sentiments  of  every 
denomination  of  Christians  The  inspired  history  of 
the  Church  gives  no  instance  of  Sabbatli  fasting  nor 
first  day  rejoicing,  subsequent  to  this  particular  sea- 
son. These  inconsistences  wc  have  noticed,  effectu- 
ally destroy  the  argument,  as  evidence  against  the 
Sabbath  being  a  fit  season  for  Gospel  worship.  And 
wc  cannot  imagine  that  Christ  designed  ;  or  that 
the  disciples  ever  understood  these  remarks  of  Christ 
as  indicating  a  change  of  the  Sabbath,  or  that  the  ven- 
erable Doctor  would  ever  have  had  his  attention  drawn 
to  them  for  proof  ofa  change  of  the  Sabbath,  had  there 
been  other  and  plain  Scripture  at  his  command. 

From  the  preceding  remarks  it  is  obvious  that  the 
Sabbath  which  was  originally  instituted,  is  divinely 
appropriate  in  every  dispensation,  for  the  instituted 
worship  of  God,  as  well  as  for  the  purpose  of  rest. 
We  have  seen  that  it  was  originally  the  duty  of  all 
man  kind  to  observe  it  ;  and  that  this  duty  was  not 
affected  by  the  peculiarities  in  its  observance,  imposed 
upon  the  Jews.  Your  reasons  for  considering  it  an 
improper  season  in  which  to  celebrate  the  Christian 
worship  together  with  those  you  have  given  in  favor 
of  the  first  day,  as  far  as  I  have  examined  them,  ap- 
pear to  me  to  be  illusive,  and  have  no  weight  when 
brought  against  a  plain  appointment  of  God.  The 
passages  of  Scripture  to  which  you  have  referred  me 
as  proof  of  the  repeal  of  the  sabbatic  institution,  viz. 
Rom.  xiv.  5,  and  Col.  ii.  16,  can  have  no  bearing 
upon  the  subject  of  the  weekly  Sabbath,  any  farther 
than  to  signify  that  its  ceremonial  peculiarities  were 
a  shadow  of  better  things  ;  and  therefore,  notofsuf- 


SABBATH    DISCUSSION.  167 

ficient  consequence  to  become  the  proper  subject  of 
contention  among  the  Jewish  and  Gentile  converts. 
Whatever  there  had  been  in  the  manner  of  its  ob- 
servance peculiar  to  the  Mosaic  dispensation,  was  un- 
questionably blotted  out,  and  nailed  to  the  cross. 
Col.  ii.  14,  and  consequently,  not  binding  upon  the 
Church. 

If  there  can  be  found  in  the  New  Testament,  suffi- 
cient proof  for  the  religious  observance  of  the  first 
day  of  the  week,  (  after  which  I  intend  carefully  to 
inquire  )  it  is  certainly  the  duty  of  the  Church  to  re- 
gard it  as  there  enjoined  ;  notwithstanding  the  obli- 
gation the  world  is  under  to  keep  the  Sabbath.  But 
the  institution  of  a  new  religious  memorial  could  not 
render  nugatory  an  original  moral  duty. 

1  am  vours  affectionately  in  the  Lord, 
W.  B.  MAXSON. 

Note. —  In  considering  tjie  manna  as  a  type  of 
Christ  and  the  promulgation  of  the  Gospel,  it  would 
be  well  to  notice  its  typical  import  in  the  only  pas- 
sage found  in  the  New  Testament  which  mentions  it, 
viz.  Heb.  ix.  4.  where  the  apostle  notices  the  putting 
the  jjot  of  manna  into  the  ark  of  the  covenant j  with 
Aaron^s  rod  that  budded,  and  the  tables  of  the  cove- 
nant, on  which  were  written  the  laws  of  the  decalogue, 
exclduing  the  hand-writing  of  the  ceremonial  law  : 
thus  indicating  that  the  precepts  of  the  decalogue 
should  be  associated  with  the  doctrine  of  Christ,  who 
was  typified  by  the  manna  ;  and  that  their  promulga- 
tion should  be  attended  by  the  miraculous  demonstra- 
tions of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  thereby  proving  their  dir 
vine  and  important  character. 


k2 


LETTER    XVIi. 


To  THE  Rev.   Wm.    Parkinson. 

December  4,  1835. 
Dear  Brother, — In  my  last  letter  I  stated,  and  I 
think  successfully  proved,  that  the  vSabbath  original- 
ly instituted,  was  divinely  adapted  to  the  instituted 
worship  of  God  in  every  dispensation  —  that  as  it  de- 
rived a  peculiar  fitness  for  religious  uses  from  the  ex- 
ample of  God  and  its  being  sanctified  by  him  for  this 
purpose,  it  was  the  duty  of  all  intelligent  beings, 
whose  existence  resulted  from  God's  six  day's  labor 
to  regard  it.  It  must,  therefore,  be  a  suitable  me- 
mento of  all  God's  great  and  good  works  of  Creation^ 
Providence  raid  Grace^  —  becoming  thus  a  kind  of 
common  link,  by  which  a  proper  connection  is  pre- 
served between  the  several  successive  dispensations 
given  to  the  world.  It  follows,  then,  as  stated  by 
the  venerable  Dr.  Dwight :  "  If  we  cannot  find  in 
the  Scriptures  plain  and  ample  proof  of  an  abrogation 
of  the  original  day,  or  the  substitution  of  a  new  one, 
the  day  undoubtedly  remains  in  full  force  and  obliga- 
tion, and  is  now  to  be  celebrated  by  all  the  race  of 
Adam.  "  This  question,  then,  will  very  naturally  be 
suggested  to  the  reader  :  Has  the  institution  been  ab- 
rogated, or  the  obligation  to  keep  the  seventh  day 
which  it  enjoins  been  discharged  by   Divine  author- 


SABBATH    DISCUSSION.  169 

ity  ?     I  will  therefore  endeavor,  explicitly  and  can- 
didly, to  answer  this  inquiry. 

And,  1.  To  me  it  appears  an  unreasonable  con- 
clusion, that  the  abrogation  of  the  institution  or  the 
observance  of  the  seventh  day,  should  as  a  matter  of 
course  result  from  the  introduction  of  a  new  dispen- 
sation ;  for  they  had  both  remained  through  several 
preceding  ones  without  any  known  change.  Nor 
must  they  of  necessity  expire  with  the  Jewish  cere- 
monial sabbaths,  as  you  suppose,  (Letter  8,  Sept.  18) 
since  they  were  not  peculiar  to  that  dispensation.  Af- 
ter you  have,  at  length,  and  I  think  successfully  proved 
that  the  seventh  day  was  from  the  creation  of  the 
world  obligatory  on  all  mankind  to  the  time  of  the 
giving  of  the  law  ;  and  that  it  was  the-  same  seventh 
day  in  its  weekly  returns,  that  the  Jews  were  enjoined 
to  keep  ;  I  confess  myself  at  a  loss  to  know  how  to 
understand  you^  when  you  insist  that  the  seventh 
day  as  specified  by  the  falling  of  manna,  and  recog- 
nized by  the  fourth  commandment,  was  peculiar  to 
national  Israel,  and  never  required  of  the  Gentiles. 
This  appears  to  me  an  inexplicable  decrepancy. — 
The  same  inconsistency  attends  associating  the 
weekly  Sabbath  with  circumcision,  or  Abrahamic 
covenant,  or  the  legal  dispensation,  any  farther  than 
concerns  its  Jewish  peculiarities  ;  since  it  was  re- 
quired of  Abraham's  progcnators,  back  to  Adam,  the 
the  father  of  us  all.  The  only  texts  insisted  upon  as 
proof  of  the  abrogation  of  the  institution,  or  change 
of  the  day,  are  Hos.  ii.  11 — Rom  xiv.  5 — Gal.  iv.  10, 
11  ;  and  Col.  ii.  16,  17.  The  former  has  been 
shown  to  refer  to  Israel's  captivity,  and  not  to  the 
Gospel  dispensation  ;  and  it  has  also  been  shown  that 
the  other  texts  relate  only  to  the  Jewish  ceremonial 
observances.  The  citations  from  Collossians  is  mostly 
relied  upon  as  proof  that  the    sabbatic  law  is  done 


170  SABBATH    DISCUSSION. 

away,  and  I  have  stated  that  sabbaths  in  this  text  refers 
only  to  ceremonial  sabbaths.  I  will  add  that  the 
reader  is  requested  to  read  the  twenty  tliird  chapter  of 
Leviticus,  where  he  will  find  the  annual  festivals, 
in  which  labor  is  forbidden,  are  called  ,  sabbaths. — 
And  it  is  evident  that  sabbaths  in  this  place,  referred 
only  to  such  as  rank  with  meat,  drink,  and  nettr 
moons,  &;c.,  which  are  known  to  be  of  a  very  differ- 
ent character  from  the  weekly  Sabbath.  Henry, 
Clark,  and  most  other  commentators,  understand  this 
text  as  referring  only  to  ceremonial  festivals.  See 
Adam  Clark  on  this  place,  where  he  has  supported, 
at  some  length,  the  opinion  I  have  given  of  it.  From 
hence  it  appears  that  there  is  not  sufficient  and  am. 
pie  proof  that  the  institution  is  abrogated,  or  the  sev- 
enth day  set  aside. 

2.  The  weekly  Sabbath  appears  to  have  been 
thus  understood  by  the  inspired  writers.  David  says, 
(Ps.  cxi.  7,  8,)  "  All  his  commandments  are  sure  ; 
they  stand  fast  forever  and  ever.  '^  This  can  only 
apply  to  the  decalogue,  in  which  the  command  to 
keep  the  Sabbath  is  embraced.  He  therefore  in  ef- 
fect, declares  this  precept  to  be  as  durable  as  the  oth- 
er nine  with  which  it  is  associated.  See  also  Isa.  Ixvi. 
23,  where  it  is  predicted  that  the  Gospel  dispensa- 
tion, and  particularly  when  it  shall  gloriously  triumph 
over  the  whole  earth,  the  Sabbath  shall  be  univer- 
sally and  religiously  regarded.  These  inspired  proph- 
ets could  see  nothing  in  the  institution  itself,  nor  in 
any  divine  instruction  concerning  it,  that  could  lead 
them  to  anticipate  its  abrogation,  as  many  good  and 
wise  men  have  since  seen. 

3.  We  may  learn  the  unchangeable  nature  of  the 
Sabbath  from  its  association  with  the  precepts  of  the 
decalogue,  the  whole  of  which,  without  alteration, 
our  Saviour  has  declared  a  law  to   the    Church    till 


SABBATH   DISCUSSION.  171 

heaven  and  earth  shall  pass  away.  See  Matt.  v.  17 
-^—19.  His  remarks  in  this  place  necessarily  include 
the  observance  of  the  Sabbath  enjoined  in  the  fourth 
commandment.  In  accordance  with  this  instruction, 
he  declared  himself  '*  Lord  of  the  Sabbath.  *'  See 
Mark  ii.  28.  By  this  he  intimated  the  permanency 
of  the  institution,  and  that  he  was  not  Lord  of  a  shad- 
cw  —  a  weak  and  beggarly  element ;  but  of  a  solid 
good,  which  the  Sabbath  has  alw^s  been  to  the 
people  of  God.  Again,  he  intimated  to  his  disciples 
that  the  Sabbath  should  remain  after  the  shadows  of 
that  dispensation  had  fled  away.  Whatever  his  ob- 
ject might  have  been  in  directing  them  to  pray  that 
their  flight  from  Jerusalem,  (  which  he  knew  would 
be  about  forty  years  after  that  dispensation  would  be 
closed,)  might  not  happen  on  the  Sabbath,  it  is  cer- 
tain he  knew  there  would  be  a  day  known  and  re- 
graded  as  such  ^at  that  time. 

4.  It  appears  to  have  been  thus  understood  and 
regarded  by  the  disciples  after  the  resurrection  of 
Christ.  They  are  uniformly  represented  as  attend- 
ing public  worship  on  the  Sabbath.  In  the  very  brief 
history  given  us  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  of  their 
practice  and  labors,  their  meeting  and  preaching  on 
the  Sabbath  are  more  frequently  mentioned  than  any 
other  particular  relating  to  their  history.  In  Antioch, 
Paul  preached  one  Sabbath  to  an  assembly  of  Jews 
and  Gentiles  in  the  Synagogue,  and  on  the  following 
Sabbath,  perhaps  in  the  street,  being  requested  by 
the  Gentile  converts,  he  preached  to  the  whole  city. 
Acts  13th  chap.  The  inference  fairly  drawn  from 
this  account  is,  that  the  Sabbath  was  the  only  day 
known  to  these  Gentiles  as  a  season  of  religious  as- 
sembling. In  Iconium,  Paul  and  Barnabas  again 
preached  in  the  Synagogue,  which  (according  to 
your  conclusion,  Letter  1,)  must  also  have  been   on 


172 


SABBATH    DISCUSSION. 


the  Sabbath.  At  this  time  they  preached  to  a  large 
congregation  ;  for  a  great  multitude,  both  of  Jews 
and  Gentiles,  were  converted.  The  like  occurrence 
took  place  in  Salamis.  See  Acts  xiii.  5,  and  xiv.  1. 
The  same  course  was  pursued  by  Paul  and  Silas, 
after  their  separation  from  Barnabas.  In  Philippi, 
where  there  appears  to  have  been  neither  Jews  nor 
Synagogue,  Paul  and  his  companions  retired  from 
the  city  to  a  place  of  prayer  by  the  side  of  a  river  on 
the  Sabbath  ;  at  which  time  and  place,  Lydia  and 
her  house-hold  were  both  converted  and  baptized. — 
Acts  xvi.  13,  14.  In  Thessalonica,  Paul  preached 
three  Sabbaths  in  succession.  And  we  are  here  in- 
formed that  this  was  his  common  custom.  Acts  xvii, 
1,  2.  Accordingly,  they  are  in  the  Synagogue  in 
Berea,  preaching  to  Jews  and  Greeks  :  and  not  a 
few  of  them  were  converted  at  this  time,  verse  10-12. 
Again,  Paul  is  in  the  Synagogue  of  Athens,  preach- 
ing to  Jews,  and  devout  persons,  who  attended  wor- 
ship with  them,  and  daily  to  such  as  he"  met  with  in 
places  of  public  resort.  Verse  16,  17.  From  Ath- 
ens, Paul  went  to  Corinth,  where  he  preached  to  Jews 
and  Gentiles  three  Sabbaths  ;  and  after  this  he  con- 
tinued his  labors  in  a  private  house  for  a  year  and  six 
months.  Acts  xviii.  4 — 11.  In  Ephesus,  also,  he 
taught  in  the  Synagogue  for  three  months  ;  and  when 
opposed  by  unbelievers,  he  taught  every  day  in  the 
school  of  Tyrannus  for  two  years.  Chap.  xix.  8-10. 
From  the  above  references,  it  is  put  beyond  dispute 
that  the  disciples  observed  the  Sabbath,  externally  at 
least ;  and  there  can  be  no  authorized  assurance  that 
they  were  not  conscientious  in  their  practice.  No  one 
can  be  warranted  in  saying  that  this  constant  atten- 
dance upon  the  public  ministration  of  the  word  on 
this  day,  resulted   from    the  want  of  opportunity  to 


SABBATH     DISCUSSION.  173 

preach  to  the  Jews  at  other  seasons.     The  Scriptures 
intimate  nothing  like  this 

.5.  From  the  conduct  of  the  first  Christians  in 
things  relating  to  the  legal  dispensation,  it  is  very 
evident  that  they  did  not  consider  the*  former  Sabhath 
as  abrogated.  It  is  well  known  that  the  first  Chris- 
tians v/ere  Jews,  as  were  all  the  apostles  ;  and  that 
in  general,  they  adhered  tenaciously  to  many  things 
of  a  national  character.  It  was  eight  years  after 
the  ascension  of  Christ  before  Peter  understood 
that  he  might  go  among  the  Gentiles,  or  eat  any 
thing  that  Avas  legally  unclean  :  during  which  time 
he  was  zealously  and  successfully  preaching  the  Gos- 
pel in  Judea,  Galilee,  and  Samaria  ;  and  the  Church- 
es in  those  regions  "  walked  in  the  fear  of  the  Lord, 
and  in  the  comfort  of  the  Ploly  Ghost,  and  were 
multiplied.''  Acts  ix.  31,  32,  and  x.  14.  St.  Paul 
was  not  so  much  opposed  to  certain  peculiarities  of 
the  Jews  as  many  imagine  ;  for  he  had  put  himself 
under  the  vow  of  a  Nazarite,  and  when  he  v/as  in 
Cenchrea,  shaved  his  head  on  that  account.  About 
six  years  after  this,  by  the  advice  of  the  other  apos- 
tles, he  went  into  the  Temple  with  certain  disciples 
who  v/ere  under  a  similar  vow,  and  there  performed 
the  rites  of  purification  with  them.  This  seems 
not  to  have  been  done  from  the  conviction  that  le- 
gal ceremonies  were  religiously  binding  [;  butlo  con- 
vince the  Church  in  Jerusalem  that  he  himself  "  walk- 
ed orderly  and  kept  the  law. "  As  this  latte  r  act 
was  performed  some  years  after  his  rebuking  Peter 
for  his  dissimulation,  recorded  Gal.  ii.  11 — 14,  and 
his  last  recorded  act  while  he  had  his  liberty,  I  con- 
clude that  you  will  admit  that  he  did  not  view  a  con- 
nivance at  Jewish  usages  so  grossly  and  sinfully  in- 
consistent as  you  formerly  supposed.  Again,  Paul 
declares  at  Rome,  that  he  had  done    nothing  against 


l'/4  SABBATH    DISCUSSION. 

the  customs  of  the  Jewish  fathers.     Acts  xxviii.  17. 
I  do  not  understand  by   this   that    he  strictly  adhered 
to  all  the  customs  practiced  by  the  Pharisees,  but  we 
must  infer  from  Jience  that  he  had  not  departed  from 
the  course  prescribed  by  the  "Law  and   the   Proph- 
ets ;''  otherwise  this  declaration  would  not  have  been 
true.     And,  finally,  the  elders  of  the  Church  declar- 
ed,  that  there    were    many  thousands  of  believing 
Jews,  and  that  they   were   "  all  zealous  of  the  law.  " 
Acts  xxi.  20.     These  things  considered,  it  cannot  be 
reasonably  doubted  that  all  the  Churches    in  Judea, 
Galilee,   and  Samaria,  were  more  or  less  tenacious 
of  the    ceremonial    law.     If,   then,   those   Churches 
which  embraced  the  greatest  number  of  believers  in 
the  apostolic  age  were  not  free  from  Jewish  usages,  it 
must  be  next  to  certain  that  they   had   not    departed 
from  the  observance  of  the  weekly  Sabbath  ;  which, 
in  their  estimation,  was  by  far  the  most  important.— 
The  Thessalonian  Church  was  composed  of  both  Jews 
and  Greeks,   and,  at  the    time    of  their   conversion, 
were  in  the  habit  of  attending  worship  on  the    Sab- 
bath.     Acts  xvii.  1 — 4,     This   Church  followed   the 
Churches   in  Judea.      I  Thes.  ii.    14.       And    they 
were  examples  to  all  the  believers  in  Macedonia,  and 
Achaia.     Chap.  i.  7.     From  these  revealed  facts  we 
may  properly  infer  that  all  these  Churches  observed 
the  Sabbath,  as  did   the  Churches   in    Judea.     This 
inference  is  strengthened  by  the  fact  that  a   religious 
regard  to  the  seventh  day  never  had  been  considered 
by  either  Jews  or  Gentiles,  as   originating  with    the 
Jews,  or  that  it  belonged  to  their  ritual. 

6.  Had  the  weekly  Sabbath  undergone  any  change 
as  to  the  day  on  which  it  had  been  kept,  it  is  unac- 
countably strange  that  neither  the  unbelieving  Jews, 
who  were  ever  watchful  and  ready  to  bring  accusa- 
tions against  the   Christians,  nor   the  Judaizing  class 


SABBATH    DISCUSSION.  175 

of  believers,  appear  ever  to  have  had  any  contro- 
versy concerning  the  Sabbath.  When  a  difference 
arose  about  circumcision,  the  whole  Church  was  ag- 
itated with  the  subject  until  it  was  settled.  Acts  15th. 
And  when  Peter  went  unto  the  Gentiles,  he  was 
called  to  an  account  by  the  Church  in  Jerusalem. — 
Acts  xi.  1 — 3.  And  long  after  their  time,  all  the 
Churches  in  Christendom  were  thrown  into  com- 
motion on  account  of  a  difference  in  the  time  of 
keeping  the  passover,  which  nearly  affected  an  en- 
tire separation  of  the  eastern  from  the  westerrr 
Churches.  Had  the  apostles  and  Gentile  converts 
disregarded  the  ancient  Sabbath,  the  Jews  would 
not  have  failed  to  urge  it  against  them,  and  they 
would  not  have  been  allowed  to  preach  in  their 
Synagogues.  Nor  would  the  Jewish  Christians  have 
more  quietly  submitted  to  such  a  difference  and  given 
the  right  hand  of  fellowship.  Gal.  ii.  9.  We  can- 
not, therefore,  avoid  the  conclusion,  that  both  classes 
of  converts  observed  the  same  Sabbath  which  had 
always  been  kept. 

7.  As  a  confirmation  of  the  above,  I  will  notice 
some  remarks  from  the  early  Christian  writers  rela- 
tive to  this  subject,  although  I  place  but  little  con- 
fidence in  them  in  determining  a  religious  duty  any 
farther  than  they  accord  with  the  holy  Scriptures. — 
Socrates,  whose  history  extends  from  about  A.  D. 
310,  to  A.  D.  440,  states  that  for  more  that  three 
hundred  years,  almost  all  the  Churches  in  the  world 
received  the  holy  mysteries  every  Sabbath,  except- 
ing those  of  Rome  and  Alexandria.  And  yet  Dr. 
Cave  and  R.  Cornthwait  quote  Athanasius,  Bishop  of 
the  latter  city,  as  saying,  '*  We  assemble  on  Satur- 
day, not  that  we  are  infected  with  Judaism,  but  only 
to  worship  Jesus  the  Lord  of  the   Sabbath.  *'     Sozo* 


1*76  SABBATH    DISCUSSION. 

men,  whose  history  refers  to  the  same  period,  gives 
much  the  same  account.  These  authors  have  been 
admitted  by  subsequent  writers  to  have  been  correct 
in  their  statements.  Dr.  Chambers,  (  Encyc.  Art. 
Sunday,  )  when  speaking  of  Constantino,  says,  ''  be- 
fore him,  and  in  his  time,  they  observed  the  Sabbath 
as  well  as  Sunday  ;  both  to  satisfy  the  law  of  Moses 
and  to  imitate  the  Apostles,  ^^  Calvin,  in  his  Christ. 
Inst.  chap.  9,  says,  "  the  old  fathers  put  in  the  place 
of  the  Sabbath,  the  day  we  call  Sunday.  ''  Grotius, 
in  his  Explicafio7i  of  the  Decalogue,  as  quoted  by 
Cornthwait,  says,  ''  the  Christians  who  believed  that 
Christ  would  restore  all  things,  kept  holy  the  Sab- 
bath, and  had  their  assemblies  on  that  day,  in  which 
the  law  was  read  to  them,  as  appears  by  Acts  xv.  21. 
which  custom  continued  to  the  time  of  the  council  of 
Laodicea,  (  about  335  )  who  then  thought  meet  that 
the  Gospels  should  also  be  read  on  that  day. ''  M. 
Dela  Roque,  a  French  Protestant,  in  answer  to 
Bossuet,  observes  :  Mr.  Bossuet  tells  us  of  the  ob- 
servation of  the  Sabbath  was  a  thing  taken  for  grant- 
ed in  the  Church.  He  has  reason  to  say  so  ;  and  the 
learned  Grotius  has  imanswerably  proved  it  mfhis  re- 
marks upon  the  decalogue.  What  consequences 
should  we  draw  from  these  premises  1  Certainly 
this,  as  it  evidently  appears  that  before  any  change 
was  introduced,  she  religiously  observed  that  day  for 
many  ages.  We  of  consequence  are  obliged  to  keep 
it.  "  A  quotation  from  Morer  shall  close  these  cita- 
tions on  this  point.  "  Socrates  tell  us  that  all  the 
Churches  over  the  world,  excepting  Rome  and  Al- 
exandria, set  apart  as  well  Saturday  as  Sunday  for 
religious  uses.  Even  the  Egyptians,  and  those  that 
dwelt  at  Thebais,  borderers  on  Alexandria,  complied 
and  had  on  both  days  prayers  and  collections.  '^ — 


SABBATH      DISCUSSION.  177 

Sozomen  has  the  same  exceptions  of  Rome  and  Al- 
exandria, but  (  to  use  his  own  words  )  ail,  or  most  of 
the  other  Churches  carefully  observe  the  Sabbath. — 
And  so  great  stress  was  laid  on  keeping  it,  that 
Gregory  Nyssen  expostulates  thus,  "  With  what 
eyes  can  you  behold  the  Lord^s  day  when  you  des- 
pise the  Sabbath  ?  Do  you  not  perceive  they  are 
sisters  and  that  in  slighting  the  one  you  affront  the 
the  other.  '^  And  as  sisters  they  went  hand  in  hand 
in  the  ecclesiastical  canons.  "  If  any  clergyman 
be  found  fasting  on  the  Lord's  day  or  on  the  Sabbath, 
let  him  be  suspended.  "  Can.  66.  And  in  the  sixth 
council  of  Trullo,  the  canons  obliged  all  people  to 
fast  throughout  Lent,  except  on  the  Sabbath  and 
the  Lord's  day.  And  so  they  are  joined  together  in 
49  and  51  of  the  council  ofLaodicea.  "  In  some,  " 
says  Balsamon,  "  the  holy  fathers  make  the  Sabbath 
and  the  Lord's  day  to  stand  on  the  same  ground , 
and  they  were  equally  respected  in  ancient  times. " 

In  the  proceeding  remarks,  I  have  shown,  1.  That 
the  texts  cited  from  the  New  Testament  to  prove  the 
abrogation  of  the  Sabbath,  do  not  refer  to  the  subject, 
and  therefore  cannot  prove  it.  2.  That  the  inspired 
writers  David  and  Isaiah,  intimated  that  no  change 
would  take  place  in  regard  to  the  law  of  the  Sabbath 
in  the  Gospel  dispensation.  3.  That  our  Lord  con- 
firmed it,  together  with  the  whole  decalogue,  as  a 
law  to  the  Church,  and  intimated  its  continuance  after 
his  death.  4.  That  the  apostles  and  primative 
Church,  by  their  constant  attendance  on  the  worship 
of  God  upon  the  Sabbath,  give  ample  evidence  that 
no  change  had  taken  place  in  their  time.  5.  That 
from  their  apparent  attachment  to  many  of  the  abol- 
ished ceremonies  of  that  dispensation,  they  leave  us 
no  ground  to  imagine  that  they  thought  the  Sabbath 


178  SABBATH     DISCUSSION. 

was  abolished,  or  the  day  changed.  6.  That  there 
was  no  complaint,  or  difficulty,  between  the  Jews 
and  Christians  ;  nor  between  the  Christians  them- 
selves on  account  of  any  difference  between  them  on 
the  subject  of  the  Sabbath  ;  which  there  would  have 
been,  had  such  difference  existed.  And  7.  From 
numerous  citations  from  ancient  and  modern  Chris- 
tian writers,  it  appears  that  the  Sabbath  for  many 
ages  was  regarded  out  of  respect  to  the  fourth  com- 
mandment. 

The  only  just  conclusions  we  can  draw  from  these 
facts,  are,^  1.  That  whatever  regard  was  paid  to 
the  first  day,  the  Sabbath  was  not  abrogated,  nor 
tlie  time  of  its  observance  changed.  2.  That  to 
assert  that  the  primitive  Churches  assembled  not  on 
the  Sabbath,  nor  attended  upon  Gospel  ordinances 
on  that  day  is  plainly  at  variance  with  facts.  3. — 
That  it  was  not  only  the  Jewish  part  of  the  Church 
that  thus  regarded  the  Sabbath  ;  but  by  far  the 
greatest  part  of  the  Gentile  Christians,  and  this  not 
for  a  short  season  only,  but  for  several  hundred 
years.  4.  That  it  was  not  a  matter  of  forbearance 
on  the  part  of  the  Gentile  Christians,  that  their 
Jewish  brethren  were  allowed  thus  to  keep  the  Sab- 
bath, but  that  the  Gentiles  themselves  were  strenuou 
in  enforcing  its  observance.  5.  That  the  observ- 
ance of  the  Sabbath  was  not  the  result  of  a  misera- 
ble declension^  as  some  good  and  learned  men  have 
asserted  ;  but  on  the  contrary,  that  it  was  relin- 
quished in  the  age  of  the  greatest  darkness  and  de- 
clension, that  ever  oppressed  the  Chur^^h.  And  fi- 
nally, as  no  change  of  the  Sabbath  took  place  in  the 
age  of  inspiration,  there  has  been  no  authorized 
change  since.  The  Church  and  the  world  are  there- 
fore bound  to  observe  it. 


SABBATH     DISCUSSION^.  179 

I  have  in  this  letter  traced  the  evidence  which 
relates  to  the  Sabbath,  without  particularly  atten- 
ding to  the  claims  of  the  first  day  of  the  week. — 
I  intend,  however,  not  to  neglect  them. 

I  remain  yours  in  the  Lord, 

WM.  B.  MAXSON 


LETTER    XVill. 


To  THK  Rev.  Wm.  Parkinson. 

Becemher  11,   1835. 

Dear  Brother, — Agreeably  to  the  intimation  in  my 
last,  I  will  novv  endeavor  to  investigate  the  claims  of 
the  first  day  of  the  v/eek  to  sanctification.  In  exam- 
ining this  subject,  however,  let  it  be  remembered,  that 
I  am  not  looking  for  evidence  to  strengthen  the  obli- 
gation due  to  the  seventh  day  :  for  this  is  effectually 
enforced  by  the  fourth  commandment  of  the  deca- 
logue. And  we  have  already  proved  that  this  pre- 
cept has  never  been  abrogated  :  nor  has  there  befen 
any  evidence  offered  to  prove  that  the  first  day  has 
ever  been,  by  Divine  authority  substituted  for  the 
seventh.  If,  then,  there  should  be  found  sufficient 
authority  for  observing  the  first  day,  the  consequence 
is,  we  have  two  Sabbaths  in  a  week  instead  of  one. 

In  my  letter  of  Nov.  13th,  I  proved  the  improprie- 
ty of  claiming  any  advantage  for  the  first  day  on  ac- 
count of  its  being  the  first  day  of  creation  ;  as  God 
has  decided  otherwise  by  appointing  the  seventh  and 
last  day  of  the  week :  And  also,  that  the  analogy 
sought  for  in  the  falling  of  manna  in  the  wilder- 
ness, is  entirely  uncertain  ;  and  therefore,  not  enti- 
tled to  any  weight  in  this  question.  It  remains  for 
me  to  consider  your  second  reason  in  favor  of  keeping 


SABBATH     DISCUSSION,  181 

the  first  day,  viz  :    That  it  is  validly  the    day  of    re-^ 
demption. 

The  argument  you  offer  in  support  of  this  reason, 
however  plausible  it   may    appear,    is  attended   witii 
entire  uncertainty,  as  it   proceeds   wholly    upon   as- 
sumption.    For  the  Scriptures  do  not  inform  us  that 
the  resurrection  was  validly  redemption  ;  or  that  the 
day  on  which  it  occurred,    was   to    be    esteemed  on 
that  account.      Were  you  to  abide  by  your   first  rea- 
son for  celebrating  this  day,  viz  :     That    it  was  em- 
fhatically  the  creation  day,  because    God  began   his 
work  on  this  day  ;  you  would  find  it  difficult  to  con- 
sider the  day  of  Christ's  birth  in  any  other  light  than 
as  the    day  of   redemption.      Christ  began  his  woi'k 
then,  and  as  a    suffering    Saviour,     closed  it  on    the 
Cross,  when  he  said,  "  It  is  finished,    and  bowed  his 
head  and  gave  up    the   ghost.  '^      To   this   important 
transaction,  do  the  holy  Scriptures  direct  us  for  what 
was  emphatically   the   work   of  redemption  ;    in  this 
sense,  the  day  on  which  Christ  suffered,  was  the  day 
of  redemption.     By  tho  death  of  Christ,    God    hath 
commended  his  love  to  us  while  we   were   sinners. — 
Rom.  V.  8.     The  Church  is  purchased  by  the  blood  of 
Christ.     Acts  xx.  28.     By  this  also  she  is  reconciled, 
justified,  and  saved.     See  Eph.  ii.  13.     I  Peter  i.  18, 
19.     Rev.  V.  9.     Much  more  of  the  like  import  might 
be  cited,  but  these  are  sufficient   to  show    how  much 
stress^the   Scriptures  lay  upon    the  death  of  Christ. 
From  this,  all  the  influence  his  resurrection  has  upon 
the  joy  and  triumph  of  his  disciples,  is  derived.      The 
resurrection,  although  a  great  and  joyful  event,   was 
tmlike,  in  magnanimity,  the  disinterested    act  of  of- 
fering himself  a  sacrifice  for  us.     This  has,  in  truth, 
out-shone   any   other  act  our  Lord  could   have    per- 
formed.     In  short,  if  the  Work  of  Redemption    was 
not  validly  completed  on  the  Cross,  it  will  not  be  un- 

L 


182  SABBATH    DISCUSSION- 

til  Christ  shall  have  finished  his  mediatorial  work. — 
This  argument,  then,  however  plausible,  and  gener- 
ally concurred  in,  is  powerless  in  regard  to  the  insti- 
tution of  the  first  day  ;  because  it  is  unaccompanied 
with  a  "  Thus  saith  the  Lord.*'  Hence  the  difficul- 
ty ol*  understanding  how  the  resurrection  could  con- 
stitute the  day  on  which  it  occurred,  the  proper  sea- 
son for  Christian  vvorship,  rather  than  the  Nativity y 
the  Crucijixion,  or   the    Ascension, 

The  whole  preference  claimed  for  the  first  day  must 
rest  upon  the  certainty  of  its  being  the  day  of  the  res- 
urrection. I  do  not  recollect  that  I  have  danied  ei- 
ther this,  or  that  our  Lord  was  crucified  on  the  sixth 
day  ;  although  I  have  given  you  to  understand  that  I 
inclined  to  another  opinion.  Although  Mr.  Burnside 
agrees  with  you  as  to  the  time  of  these  events,  I  can- 
not say  that  I  am  convinced  of  the  accuracy  of  your 
illustrations.  My  reasons  for  dissenting  from  you 
are  — 

1.  The  definite  manner  in  which  Christ  predicted 
the  length  of  time  he  would  lie  in  the  grave.  Matt, 
xii.  40,  leads  me  to  believe  that  he  designed  to  signi- 
fy that  a  longer  period  should  elapse  from  his  burial 
to  his  resurrection,  than  is  generally  allowed.  We 
are  unquestionably  bound  to  understand  this  predic- 
tion as  we  do  other  parts  of  inspiration  (  in  its  most 
obvious  sense  )  if  it  can  be  done  without  violence  to 
the  other  forms  in  which  the  prediction  was  uttered. 
Hence,  "  in  three  days,"  "  the  third  day,  *'  "after 
three  days, "  and  "  three  days,  and  three  nights,'' 
are  to  be  understood  in  that  sense  in  which  all  these 
parallel  texts  will  unite,  and  the  latter  is  certainly  the 
inost  definite.  Allowing  that  Christ  accomplished  the 
full  term  of  three  days  and  three  nights  in  the  sepul- 
chre, all  these  forms  of  the  prediction  are  harmonized, 
but  not  otherwise.     It  is  evident  the  Jews  so  under- 


SABBATH     DISCUSSION.  19S 

jgtood  the  prediction  from  what  they  said  to  Pilate  the 
day  after  the  crucifixion  :  "  we  remember  that  that 
deceiver  said,  After  three  days  I  will  rise  again. '"' — 
Matt,  xxvii.  63. 

2.  I  am  inclined  to  the  opinion,  that  Christ  fulfil- 
led his  predicted  period  in  the  grave,  from  his  making 
the  case  of  Jonah  typical  of  his  own.  Now  we  are 
told  that  *'  Jonah  was  in  the  belly  of  the  fish  three 
days  and  three  nights."  Jon.  i,  17.  There  can  be  no 
doubt  but  Jonah  was  in  his  wretched  prison  the  full 
term  here  mentioned,  at  least,  the  greater  part  of 
each  respective  day  and  night  —  otherwise,  the  nar- 
rative is  calculated  to  convey  error  rather  than  truth, 
which  cannot  be  admitted.  As  the  three  days  were 
accomplished  by  Jonah,    so  they  were   by  Christ. 

3,  Another  fact  which  strengthens  this  opinion  is, 
this  definite  prediction  was  uttered  by  Jesus  in  reply 
to  the  Jews,  vvho  asked  him  for  a  sign  ;  that  is,  g, 
sign  that  he  was  the  expected  Messiah.  He  was 
probably  the  more  precise  in  his  expressions  on  this 
account,  that  they  might  have  the  fairest  opportuni- 
ty of  bemg  convinced  of  tlie  truth.  Had  the  sepulchre 
been  vacated  before  the  appointed  time,  there  would 
have  been  more  difficulty  in  convincing  them  that  he 
was  actually  risen  from  the  dead.  I  am  not  igno- 
rant of  the  fact,  that  the  Jews  were  not  always  ex- 
act in  their  manner  of  expressing  a  number  of  days  ; 
but  I  believe  a  parallel  case  cannot  be  furnished  from 
the  Scriptures,  where  a  term  as  definitely  expressed 
as  this,  was  not  fulfilled.  And  if  it  be  as  you  have 
stated  (Letter  1,  Jan.  30)  that  this  mode  was  pursued 
only  in  regard  to  sacred  time,  it  has  no  influence  in 
this  case  :  for  it  was  not  mentioned,  nor  understood 
as  a  sacred,  or  religious  season.  We  are  sometimes 
referred  to  the  case  of  Esther,  which  is  said  to  be 
similar,  *'  Go,  neither  eat  nor  drink  three  days,  night 

l2 


184  SABBATH     DISCUSSION* 

nor  day,  and  so  I  will  go  in  unto  the  king. "  It  fol- 
lows that  on  the  third  day  she  stood  in  the  court  of 
the  king's  house.  Est.  iv.  16,  and  v*  1.  But  therfe 
is  not  the  slightest  evidence  that  the  fast  was  not  ob- 
served the  full  term  of  three  days,  night  and  day. — 
Although  the  Jews  sometimes  so  counted  their  days, 
they  had  no  fixed  rule  for  this.  They  sometimes 
made  the  number  less  than  what  it  was.  An  instance 
of  this  occurs  in  Matt.  xvii.  1,  and  in  Luke  ix.  28. — 
They  both  record  the  same  events  ;  the  former  says  it 
was  after  six  days  :  the  latter  "  ai)out  eight  days 
after. *^  In  this  example,  Matthew  omitted  two  days 
which  were  counted  by  Luke.  When  a  night  and  a 
day  a.re  mentioned  as  in  the  case  of  Paul,  11  Cor.  xi. 
25j  we  must  suppose  that,  at  least,  the  greater  part 
of  both  are  intended  ;  or,  for  what  intent  are  both 
night  and  day  mentioned  at  all  ?  Upon  the  suppo- 
sition, that  the  shortest  pei'iod  of  time  is  to  be  con- 
sidered equal  to  a  day  and  a  night.  Paul  may  only 
have  fallen  overboard,  and  immediately  been  extri- 
cated ;  but  we  might  as  well  deny  the  truth  of  the 
Apostle's  assertion,  as  to  contend  for  it  in  this  sense. 
I  conceive  the  same  accuracy  should  be  admitted  in 
the  fulfillment  of  the  three  days  and  three  nights, 
which  Christ  lay  in  the  grave,  that  is  allowed  in  the 
case  of  Paul. 

4.  We  are  informed  in  Luke  xxiii.  56,  that  after 
the  burial,  the  females  who  attended  the  solemnity, 
returned  and  prepared  spices  and  ointments  for  em- 
balming, and  rested  the  Sabbath  day  according  to 
the  commandment.  The  labor  here  said  to  be  per- 
formed was  not  inconsiderable.  They  did  not  obtain 
those  articles  prepared  at  their  hands.  This  labor 
must  occupy  time  ;  but  no  time  is  allowed  in  which 
it  could  have  been  done,  unless  a  season  in  which  it 
was    lawful  to  labor  intervened.      It  certainly   was 


SABBATH    DISCUSSION.  185 

not  done  on  the  weekly  Sabbath,  for  on  that  day  they 
rested.  The  paschci]  Sabbath  too,  v/as  a  day  in 
which  work  would  not  have  been  allowed.  Although 
females  were  not  enjoined  to  appear  in  the  public  as- 
i5embly,  they  as  well  as  males  were  forbidden  to  la- 
bor. See  Lev.  xxiii.  7.  Allowing  a  season  for  work 
to  intervene  between  the  burial  and  the  commence- 
Tnent  of  the  weekly  Sabbath,  and  that  the  convo- 
cation day  was  not  thus  employed,  we  account  for 
the  full  term  for  which  1  contend.  You  seem  to 
be  very  confident  that  our  Lord  suiTered  on  the  sixtli 
day  because  it  was  the  day  before  the  Sabbath.  This 
however,  is  altogether  inconclusive  ;  since  the  feast 
of  unleavened  bread  was  always  denominated  a  Sab- 
bath, let  it  fall  on  which  ever  day  of  the  v/eek  it  might. 
That  it  was  not  a  common  Sabbath,  is  evident  from 
John  xix.  31,  where  it  is  said  'Mhat  Sabbath  was  a 
high  day.  "  As  no  evidence  is  given  that  the  weekly 
Sabbath  was  designed,  I  am  at  liberty  to  believe 
that  the  Sabbath  of  the  passover  only  was  intended. 
As  there  is  no  evidence  that  the  day  in  question  was 
the  weekly  Sabbath,  so  there  is  none  that  there  were 
two  preparations  on  the  preceding  day.  The  Scrip- 
tures mention  it  only  as  the  prcvaratioji  of  the  pass- 
over.  From  the  foregoing  statement  of  facts,  it  is 
probable  that  our  Lord  suffered  on  the  fourth  day  of 
the  week,  rather  than  on  the  sixth. 

Respecting  the  time  of  our  Lord's  resurrection,  I 
have  no  particular  interest,  besides  what  is  imposed 
upon  me  by  consistency.  I  have  already  shown  that 
no  duty  is  settled  by  it.  I  have  no  objections  to  its 
having  occurred  on  the  first  day  of  the  week  ;  but,  as 
the  Scriptures  do  not  state,  nor  necessarily  imply  that 
it  took  place  on  that  day,  I  am  under  no  obligation  to 
believe  it,  excepting  what  is  due  to  general  opinion. 
Still;  it  maybe  proper  to  state,  that  as  Jesus  was  inter- 


186  SABBATII    DISCCrsSION. 

red  in  the  evening,  or  a  little  before  the  setting  of 
the  sun  on  the  preparation,  three  complete  days 
which  he  was  to  lie  in  the  grave,  would  point  out  the 
evening  as  the  time  of  his  resurrection.  Hence  I  am 
inclined  to  believe  that  this  glorious  event  occurred 
not  far  from  the  close  of  the  weekly  Sabbath.  Mat. 
thew  states  that,  "in  the  end  [Gr.  eveningj  of  the  Sab- 
bath, when  it  began  to  dawn  [Gr.  draw  on]  towards 
the  first  day  of  the  week,  '■  the  women  came  to  see  the 
sepulchre.  And  there  had  been  an  earthquake,  an 
angel  had  descended  and  rolled  the  stone  from  the 
door,  and  sat  upon  it  when  they  arrived.  The  Sa- 
viour was  then  risen  and  gone,  and  this  appears  to  be 
not  far  from  the  time  the  event  took  place.  For  this 
understanding  of  this  text,  and  a  defense  of  it,  I  refer 
the  reader  to  Parkhurst,  and  Mackniorht.  There  is 
no  contradiction  between  this  text  thus  understood, 
and  the  testimony  of  the  other  evangelists  who  re- 
cord a  visit  of  the  women  to  the  sepulchre  in  the 
morning.  Two  visits  are  recorded,  and  the  circum- 
stances connected  with  them  are  sufficiently  distinct 
to  show  that  two  visits  were  made.  All  the  attempts 
at  harmonizing  these  different  accounts  and  reconci- 
ling them  to  one  visit,  have  been,  in  my  opinion,  at 
the  expense  of  consistency.  This  passage  thus  un- 
derstood is  conclusive  evidence  that  the  resurrection 
occurred  that  evening,  for  the  sepulchre  was  empt}-. 
The  foregoing  calculations  in  regard  to  the  time  of 
our  Lord's  death  and  resurrection,  are  not  unaided' 
by  prophecy.  I  refer  to  Daniel  ix.  27,  where  it  is 
said,  "  In  the  midst  of  the  week  he  [Messiah]  shall 
cause  the  sacrifice  and  oblation  to  cease."  The 
weeks  mentioned  in  the  preceding  verses,  are  un- 
questionably prophetic  weeks,  and  point  out  the 
time  of  Israel's  captivity,  and  the  incarnation  of  the 
Lord  Jesus.     But  the  event  has   shown,  that  "  The 


SABBATH    BISCUSBION*  187 

midst  of  the  week,"  while  it  predicts  the  sacrificial  of- 
fering of  Christ  upon  the  Cross,  whei-eby  he  caused 
every  legal  sacrifice  and  oblation  to  cease,  is  subject 
to  a  more  literal  construction  :  and  points  out  the  pre- 
cise day  of  the  week  on  which  Christ  should  sutfer. 
To  the  resurrection  of  Christ  in  the  evening  of 
the  Sabbath,  I  am  aware  that  the  words  of  the  two 
disciples,  whiJe  on  their  way  to  Emmaus,  Luke  xxiv. 
21,  "  To-day  is  the  third  day  since  these  things 
were  done  • '  seem  to  present  an  objection  :  for  they 
are  thought  to  be  equivalent  to  saying  that  Jesus  rose 
on  that  day.  It  is  liowever  much  easier  to  reconcile 
the  words  o[  these  <lisciples  to  the  crucifixion  on  the 
fourth  day  of  the  week,  than  the  fulfillment  of  three 
days  and  three  nights,  in  the  short  space  of  thirty 
hours.  In  comparing  ver.  21,  with  ver.  14.,  wc  find 
that  they  had  talked  of  aU  the  things  which  had 
happened  ;  that  is,  the  things  which  related  to  Jesus; 
such  as  his  arrest,  his  being  delivered  to  Pilate, 
his  condemnation,  crucifixion  and  burial,  the  setting 
of  the  watch  at  the  sepulchre,  and  the  sealing  of  the 
stone.  All  these  tilings  happened,  and  they  were 
all  acts  calculated  to  make  strong  impressions  up- 
on the  m.inds  of  his  disciples.  They  talked  of  all 
these  things.  But  in  the  rehearsal  of  their  conversa- 
tion to  Jesus,  but  two  things  are  recorded,  his  con- 
demnation and  crucifixion.  They  must  therefore  have 
omitted  many  things  in  their  rehearsal,  which  they 
conversed  upon  as  thoy  walked  together,  some  of 
which  occurred  the  day  after  his  death.  According 
to  the  view  I  have  given,  this  v/as  the  fourth  day 
from  the  death  of  Christ,  but  the  third  since  all  the 
things  relating  to  him  had  happened.  Again,  as  we 
have  seen  that  sometimes  in  the  computation  of  time  a 
day  was  added  and  at  other  times  a  day  was  left  out 
of  the  account ;  it  might    hence  be   called  the   third 


iSS  SABBATH    DISCUSBIOPr. 

day  from  his  death,  although,  m  fact,  the  fourth  — 
in  either  of  these  methods  the  words  referred  to  may 
be  reconciled  to  the  view  I  have  given  of  the  subject. 
These  things  considered,  I  apprehend  there  is  less 
occasion  for  confident  assertions,  in  regard  ^to  the 
crucifixion  being  on  the  sixth,  and  the  resurrection 
on  the  first  day  of  the  week.  My  views  as  to  the 
time  of  these  events  are  not  given  in  order  to  obtain 
any  advantage  against  the  divine  appointment  of  the 
first  day  of  the  week.  If  the  New  Testament  fur^ 
nishes  evidence  that  God  has  selected  this  day  for  his 
use,  it  needs  not  to  have  been  the  day  of  the  resur- 
rection to  entitle  it  to  respect.  It  can,  therefore, 
lose  nothing  by  my  views  of  the  subject,  and  it  can 
gain  nothing  by  yours. 

You  are  very  confident  that  Jesus  kept  his  last 
passover  before  the  legal  time,  and  that  this  feast 
was  held  by  the  Jews  at  the  true  time.  I  cannot  say 
that  I  concur  with  you  in  this.  The  record  of  the 
evangelists  does  not,  in  my  opinion,  favor  the  con- 
clusion. Matt.  xvi.  17,  Mark  xiv.  12,  and  Luke 
xxii.  7,  are  very  conclusive,  and  decisively  prove 
that  Christ  had  the  passover  killed  at  the  proper, 
legal  time,  and  when  the  Jews  throughout  the  nation 
should  have  so  done.  That  the  Jews  at  Jerusalem 
did  not  eat  the  passover  at  the  time  our  Lord  and  his 
disciples  did,  and  when  it  is  probable  the  pious  Jews 
did,  is  very  evident,  but  this  circumstance  is  far  from 
proving  that  the  former  kept  tlie  feast  at  the  time  the 
law  directed.  Christ  would  have  been  under  no  ne- 
cessity for  thus  a  nticipating  the  time,  and  thus  vio- 
lating the  law,  and  teaching  his  disciples  so  to  do.  We 
know  he  had  power,  by  virtue  of  his  Divinity,  to  have 
suspended  this  law;  but  he  filled  the  place  and  per- 
formed the  duty  of  a  servant,  and,  while  on  earth, 
never  exercised  His  power  over  the  law.       See  PhiL 


SABBATH    DISCUSSION. 


180 


ii.  7,  8.  In  short,  the  Holy  Scriptures  every  where 
represent  him  as  conforming  in  every  particular  to 
the  law  —  to  that  law  which  the  Jews  were  under,  — 
until,  by  his  death,  it  was  abolished.  The  Jews,  then, 
must  be  considered  as  having  transgressed  the  law 
by  deferring  the  passover,  rather  than  Christ  by  an- 
ticipating it.  The  opinion  that  Christ  kept  not  the 
passover  at  the  legal  time  is  comparatively  of  modern 
date.  Dr.  Chambers  observes  that  "'the  Greeks 
and  some  of  the  Catholics,  from  John,  13th  chapter, 
take  occasion  to  conclude  that  Jesus  anticipated  the 
day  marked  for  the  passover  in  the  law  ;  but  the  au- 
thority of  three  of  the  evangelists  seems  to  evince  the 
contrary."  Dr.  Clarke  says  that  Christ  kept  his 
passover  the  precise  day  and  hour  in  which  the  Jewa 
had  eaten  their  first  passover  in  Egypt.  Why  the 
Jews  deferred  eating  the  passover  until  the  following 
day,  we  are  not  informed,  nor  are  we  obliged  to 
know ;  but  certain  it  is,  that  they  were  practiced  in 
the  art  of  making  void  the  law  through  their  tradi- 
tions. See  Matt.  v.  21 — 39,  and  xv.  3 — 9.  Car- 
low,  in  his  Treatise  on  the  Sabbath,  cites  the  follow- 
ing from  Goodiuin's  Translation  of  Feasts,  p.  138. 
**If  the  passover  Sabbath,  fixed  on  the  fifteenth  day 
of  the  month,  fell  on  certain  days  of  the  week,  [Mon- 
day, Wednesday,  or  Friday,]  the  Jews  had  a  custom 
to  translate  it  to  the  next  day,  by  their  rule  Badu,  of 
which  one  Eleazar  is  said  to  be  the  author  about  350 
years  before  Christ.  "  The  changing  of  sacred  times 
has  ever  been  a  fruitful  source  of  corruption.  It  was 
the  entering  wedge  for  all  the  idolatry  which  over- 
spread the  land  of^  Israel.  See  1  Kings  xii.  32,  33. 
The  exercise  of  this  arrogated  power  has  not  been 
idle  in  the  work  of  mischief  to  the  Church,  as  her 
history  fully  testifies. 

As  I  have  shown  that  Christ  ate  the  passover  at  the 


190  SABBATH  DISCUSSION. 

legal  time  ( the  fourteenth  day  of  the  month  )  and 
was  crucified  on  the  fit^teenth,  which  should  have  been 
kept  as  the  feast  of  unleavened  bread,  so  it  was  the 
day  from  which  pentecost  was  reckoned.  From  the 
morrow  after  this  Sabbath  they  were  to  count  unto 
them  seven  weeks,  or  Sabbaths.  Thus  it  is  that, 
allowing  that  Christ  fulfilled  his  three  days  and  three 
nights  in  the  heart  of  the  earth,  according  to  his  pre- 
diction, pentecost  that  year  must  have  fallen  on  the 
fifth  day  of  the  week.  Those  who  allowed  but  one 
day  and  two  nights,  calculated  the  feast  to  fall  on  the 
seventh  day.  Upon  no  other  ground  than  that  Christ 
kept  not  the  passover  when  the  law  appointed  it,  can 
the  feast  of  pentecost  be  accounted  to  fall  on  the  first 
day  of  the  week.  But,  Sir,  1  can  see  no  advantage 
the  first  day  of  the  week  could  derive  from  the  feast 
of  pentecost  falling  upon  it  ;  for  it  was  kept  as  jmnte- 
cost,  and  as  such  only  is  it  mentioned  in  the  Scrip- 
tures. If  any  honor  was  conferred  upon  the  season 
by  the  remarkable  out  pouring  of  the  Spirit,  it  was 
an  honor  conferred  on  this  annual  feast,  and  not  on 
the  day  of  the  week  on  which  it  fell.  It  is  much  to 
be  doubted  whether  this  meeting  and  the  extraordi- 
nary events  which  occurred  at  the  time,  were  ever 
thought  of  as  conferring  any  kind  of  sanctification 
upon  the  first  day  of  the  week,  until  modern  times. 

In  my  next,  I  will  notice  the  regard  said  to  be  paid 
to  the  first  day  of  the  week.  In  the  mean  time,  I 
remain  your  brother  in  the  bonds  of  the  Gospel. 

W.  B.  MAXSON, 


LtrrTER  XIX. 


THE  REGARD  PAID  BY  THE  APOSTLES  TO  THE   FIR  ST 
DAY   OF   THE    WEEK. 


To  THE  Rev.   William  Parkinson. 

December  25,  1835. 

Dear  Brother, — The  view  I  have  taken  of  the  rea- 
sons urged  in  behalf  of  the  sanctification  of  the  first 
day  of  the  week,  places  them  in  a  light  too  doubtful 
for  any  practical  use  ;  and  {  am  constrained  to  believe 
that  they  arc  not  considered  by  those  Avho  offer  them 
to  be  equivalent  to  a  divine  command  to  this  effect.  It 
is,  therefore,  contended,  that  the  regard  shown  to  this 
day  by  our  Lord,  after  his  resurrection,  and  by  the 
Apostles,  points  it  out  as  the  most  proper  season  for 
Christian  worship.  It  may,  however,  here  be  ob- 
served, that  if  the  regard  were  actually  shown  to  this 
day  which  is  contended  for,  it  would  not  follow  that 
it  was  for  the  reasons  assigned,  unless  so  explained 
in  the  Scriptures.  I  design  to  notice  what  the  inspired 
writers  have  said  upon  this  subject. 

But  I  will  first  notice  what  you  have  said  of  the 
Sabbatarian  objection  to  the  word  day,  supplied  by 
the  translators  in  the  account  given  of  the  resurrec- 
tion. (Letter  7.)  It  is  true,  that  the  objection  you 
have  noticed  has  been  "made  ;  but  vou  should  know 


192  SABBATH    DISCUSSION. 

upon  what  ground  it  is  made.  It  grows  out  of  an 
objection  to  the  received  translation  of  the  phrase, 
"  mia  ton  sahhaton.^'  Allowing  this  to  signify  liter- 
ally the  first  of  the  week,  it  must  be  apparent  to  every 
capacity  that  the  word  "  day''  would  be  a  necessary 
supply,  and  must  be  understood,  if  it  were  not  ex- 
pressed. It  is,  therefore,  proper  to  inquire  whether 
the  objection  stated  has  any  foundation.  It  will  be 
admitted  without  controversy,  that  the  literal  signifi- 
cation of  the  phrase  in  questionis,  one  of  the  sabbaths. 
But  to  be  a  little  more  particular.  The  first  of  these 
words,  mia,  which  is  a  feminine  cardinal,  signifies 
one,  and  is  not  interchangeably  used  with  its  ordinal, 
prote,  first.  It  occurs  in  its  feminine  form  about  eighty 
times  in  the  New  Testament,  and  in  its  masculine  and 
neuter  about  two  hundred  and  seventy,  and  has  uni- 
formly given  to  it  the  sense  of  one.  In  none  of  these 
places  has  it  been  rendered  firsts  except  where  it  has 
occurred  in  the  phrase  under  consideration.  Cases 
are  cited  where  the  cardinal  one,  is  used  as  an  ordinal 
first,  in  a  compound  number,  as  o?ze-and-twentieth  for 
UvGnty  first.  But  such  a  use  of  these  terms  is  com- 
mon in  our  own  dialect.  We  often  say  one-and- 
twentieth,  five-and-twentieth,  when  we  mean  twenty- 
first,  twenty-fifth,  &c.  Every  one  knov/s  that,  in  a 
a  compound  ordinal  number,  whether  written  at 
length  or  spoken,  the  first  number  m.ust  be  a  cardinal, 
and  it  matters  not  which  is  first  expressed  ;  whether 
we  say  one-and-tiventieth  or  twenty  frst,  they  mean 
fhe  same.  This,  however  could  not  justify  the  use  of 
one  for  first,  tim  for  second,  thre^  for  third,  and  so 
on.  In  the  common  and  proper  use  of  the  word  it 
signifies  one,  and  has  no  more  latitude  in  the  Greek 
than  in  the  English  language.  The  other  terms,  ton 
sabbaton,  being  in  the  plural  genitive,  signify,  of  the 
sahbaths.     The  latter  term,  sabbaton,  may  signify  a 


SABBATH    DISCLTSSIOK.  193 

week^  because  a  week   is  measured   from  Sabbath  to 
Sabbath  ;  but  it  can  have  this    sense   only  when   tho 
sense  of  the  context  points  it  out  as  unavoidable.    This 
may  be  the  proper  sense  of  the   word  in  the  case  you 
have  cited  from  Luke  xviii.  12,  where  the  Pharisee  said 
he  fasted  tv/ice  ton  sahhaiouj  in  the  week;  but  it  obtains 
here  the  sense  of  '  week  '  from  its  connection,  and  not 
from  the  import  of   the  word.     Hence  this   phrase, 
whenever  it  occurs  in  the  New  Testament,   was,   in 
some  of  the  early  English  translations,  rendered,  one 
of  the  sabbaths.     It  has  also  this  sense  in  the  Latin 
version,  where  it  is  rendered  ima  sahbatorum^  one  of 
the  sabbaths.     Those  who  object  to  the  supplied  word 
day  in  this  phrase,  believe  that  it  refers  to  the  feast  of 
seven  days  held  by  the  Jews  at  that  time,  and  that  it 
signifies  one  of  the   [festival]  sabbaths^  and  not  first 
day  of  the  week,  as  our  version  renders  it.     In  that 
sense,  the  meaning  of  the  passage  is  sufficiently  clear 
without  the  supplied  word.      This  is  not  to  avoid  the 
conclusion   that  this  was  really  the  first  day  of  the 
week  ;  but  this  follows  as  a  matter  of  course,  as  the 
preceding  day  is  admitted  to  be  the  weekly   Sabbath. 
Hence,   Mark  xvi.     9,  yrote  sabbsLtou,   first  of    the 
Sabbath,  is  understood  not  as  referring  to  tho  time  of 
the  resurrection,  but  to  the  early  part  of  that  festival 
Sabbath  ;  ora,  hour,  or  moira,  part,  being  understood. 
The  supply  in  this  case,  must  be  such  as  points  out  the 
early  part  of  the  morning  when  Christ  first  appeared 
to  Mary.      Still  the  phrase  under  consideration  may 
have  been  designed   by  tho  inspired  v/riters  to   mean 
what  the  translators  have  rendered  it ;  but  the  words 
do  not  express  it.     If  the  literal  sense  is  obscure,  it 
was  not  the  prerogative  of  a  translator  to  remove  the 
obscurity  by  departing   from  the  original   text,   and 
giving  a  comment  on  the  phrase  instead  of  a  transla- 


104  SABBATH    DISCUSSION. 

tion  of  it.  Every  person  should  be  at  liberty  to  under- 
stand the  Holy  Scriptures  for  himself. 

I  am  now  ready  to  investigate  the  regard  said  to 
have  been  paid  to  the  first  day  of  the  week.  You 
have  stated  that  the  first  day  is  observed  by  an  autho- 
rity precisely  tantamount  to  that  by  which  the  patri- 
archs, from  Adam  to  Moses,  observed  the  seventh 
day,  to  wit,  not  by  divine  commandment  but  by  divine 
example.  By  this  I  understand  you  mean  the  example 
of  Christ.  We  are  then  to  inquire  what  example 
Christ  gave  his  disciples  relative  to  this  subject. 

He  appeared,  at  several  different  times,  to  different 
companies  of  his  disciples,  on  the  first  day  following 
his  resurrection  ;  but  when  these,  with  the  circum- 
stances under  which  they  took  place,  are  considered, 
they  do  not  appear  to  indicate  an  intention  to  confer 
an  honor  on  the  day,  or  that  it  should  be  religiously 
regarded.  His  first  appearance  was  unto  some  pious 
females,  at  the  sepulchre,  who  came  with  spices  and 
ointments  to  anoint  his  body,  Luke  xxiv.  1.  There 
was  nothing  said  or  done,  at  this  time,  which  taught 
them  to  esteem  the  day  otherwise  than  as  they  had 
formerly  done.  The  second  interview  was  with  two 
of  the  disciples  on  their  way  to  Emmaus.  The  cir- 
cumstances attending  this  are  far  from  being  favor- 
able to  a  Divine  example  for  keeping  the  day  as  a 
Sabbath.  They  traveled  the  distance  of  fifteen  miles. 
Our  Lord  joined  them  in  this  walk,  and  when  at 
Emmaus  he  dined  with  them,  and  made  himself 
known  ;  but  said  nothing  relative  to  keeping  the  day, 
which  he  unquestionably  would  have  done,  had  he 
designed  it.  The  Divine  example  surely  is  not  found 
here. 

The  third  and  last  time  he  appeared  on  this  day, 
was  in  the  evening,  to  ten  of  the  apostles,  probably  in 
their  ^tipper  room,,^    where  the  eleven  abode,  John 


SABBATH     DISCUSSION.  195 

XX.    19, — Acts,  i.  13.     We  are  not  informed  at  what 
time  the  disciples  assembled  ;  but  it  was  evening  wlien 
he  appeared  to  them,  and  if  after  sun-setting,  it  was 
properly  on  the  second  day  of  the  week,  for  the  first 
ended  at  that  time.     This  you  seem  to  admit,  (Let- 
ter 1,)    but,  in  order  to  have  this  interview  on  the 
first  day,   you  observe  that  you  commence  the  day 
with  the  time  of  the  resurrection,  which  you  suppose 
to  have  been  about  midnight :  but  we  are  not  to  im- 
agine that  the  Divine  arrangement  of  the  beginning 
and  ending  of  the  day  is  to  be  changed  in  order  to 
conform  to   human   arrangements.      Commence   and 
end  the  day  of  rest  when  you  may,  the  time  God  has 
alloted  is  the  commencement  of  the  evening.  Gen.  i. 
At  sunset  the  natural  evening  begins,  and  the  natural 
morning  commences   at  sunrise.     The  evening   and 
the  morning,  thus  commencing,  constitute  the  natural 
day,  according  to  the  original   and  sacred  order  of 
time.     By  this  rule  the  Jews,  as  well  as  other  Eastern 
nations,    have   always   begun  and  ended  their  day. 
Hence,  if  the  sun  was  set  before  Christ  met  with  his 
disciples,  although  it  was  said  to  be  "  the  same  day, 
at   evening, "'   it   must   have   been   properly  on   the 
second  day  of  the  week.     But  be  this  as  it  may,  the 
day  was  far  spent,  and  by  some  of  them,  as  a  day  of 
labor.     Again,  the  disciples  were  not  assembled  out  of 
respect  for  the  day,  on  account  of  the  resurrection  ; 
as  they  did  not   believe   this  had  taken  place  until 
Christ   met  with   them.     The   object  of  their  being 
together  is  stated  to  be  ^^ for  fear  of  the  Jews;^^  John 
XX.    19.     Nor  did  the  disciples  esteem  this  day  as 
devoted  to   rest,  as  appears  by  the  women  carrying 
spices  and  ointments   to  the  sepulchre,  and   by  the 
two  disciples  journeying  as  they  did.     The  example 
of  Christ  through  the  events  of  this  day  was  contrary 
to  that  given  by  the  Creator  to  Adam.     He  rested  on 


196  SABBATH    DieCUSSIOxV. 

the  seventh  day  from  all  his  work.  It  would,  in- 
deed, be  folly  to  press  them  as  a  Divine  example  for 
celebrating  the  first  day  ;  and,  1  believe,  it  is  not 
generally  urged  in  the  face  of  ail  these  facts. 

The  next  meeting  of  Christ  and  his  disciples  was 
after  eight  days  from  his  former  meeting,  John,  xx. 
26,  when  they  were  again  within  ;  that  is,  they  were 
probably  together  at  their  common  abode.  His  ob- 
ject at  this  time  was  to  convince  Thomas,  who  was 
not  within  when  he  appeared  unto  the  ten.  But  there 
can  be  no  assurance  that  this  was  on  the  first  day  of 
the  week  ;  for,  although  by  a  custom  of  the  Jews,  as 
we  have  seen,  they  were  not  always  precise  in  num- 
bering days,  they  had  no  certain  rule  on  which  hand 
to  deviate  from  a  strict  count  ;  they  sometimes  made 
the  number  less,  and  sometimes  more,  than  it  actu- 
ally was.  Compare  Matt.  xvii.  1,  with  Luke  ix. 
29.  In  this  example,  "  after  six  days,^'  and  "about 
eight  days,  "  arc  unquestionably  intended  for  seven 
days.  And  who  can  assure  us  that  by  "  after  eight 
days, ''  nine  days  were  not  intended  ?  It  matters 
not  how  many,  nor  how  wise  they  are,  v/ho  urge 
this  passage  as  evidence  of  a  second  meeting  of 
Christ  with  his  disciples'  on  the  first  day  ;  it  is  at 
variance  with  every  authorized  interpretation  of  lan- 
guage ;  but  even  admitting  this  interview  to  have 
been  on  the  first  day,  (  which  it  could  not  have  been, 
if  the  preceding  one  was  )  what  divine  example  can 
beobtainedfrom.it  1  No  person  can  be  warranted 
in  saying  they  were  together  even  for  a  religious 
meeting  ;  much  less  that  they  were  met  out  of  re- 
gard to  the  day,  en  account  of  the  resurrection  ;  or 
on  any  other  account.  Nor  can  we  know  at  what 
time  the  disciples  convened  ;  or  at  what  time  Christ 
came  among  them  ;  or  that  the  greater  part  of  the 
day  was  not  spent   in  labor.     Tt  will  not  answer  tii^* 


SABBATH      DISCUSSION.  !&'« 

uemands  of  candid  inquiry  to  assert,  however  confi- 
dently, what  the  Scriptures  do  not  teach.  You  have 
observed  that  Christ  countenanced  his  disciples  in 
their  thus  raeeting.  I  have  no  doubt  of  this  :  he 
promised  to  be  with  them  always — every  day  ;  and 
■where  two  or  three  of  them  were  together  in  his 
•name,  he  would  be  with  them.  But  in  my  opinion, 
to  urge  as  you  have,  (  Letter  8,  Sept  18,  )  that  the 
disciples  understood  by  this  appearance  of  Christ, 
that  it  was  his  will  that  they  should  weekly  assemble 
on  this  day  for  devotional  purposes,  is  saying  what 
cannot  be  proved,  and  is  therefore  assuming  an  un- 
necessary responsibility. 

It  is  in  vain  to  say  that  his  meeting  with  them  when 
they  were  together,  and  in&tructing  them,  indicated  it 
to  be  his  will  that  they  should  observe  the  day  ;  for 
the  next  time  he  met  them,  they  were  fishing  at  the 
sea  of  Tiberias.  John,  chap.  21st.  At  this  time  he 
blessed  them,  and  gave  them  more  extensive  instruc- 
tions than  he  did  at  either  of  the  former  meetings. — 
It  would  be  as  just  to  infer  that  the  day  of  this  latter 
meeting  was  thus  consecrated  to  religious  uses,  as 
that  either  of  the  former  was.  I  have  now  examined 
all  the  interviews  of  Christ  and  his  disciples,  said  to 
have  been  on  the  first  day  of  the  week.  And  now, 
my  dear  brother,  how  does  the  example  of  Christ 
compare  with  the  example  of  God  in  regard  to  the 
Sabbath  ?  He  rested  on  that  day  from  all  the  works 
he  had  made.  He  sanctified  it  for  the  use  of  man, 
and  taught  him  by  his  own  example  to  keep  it  holy. 
Did  Christ  do  any  thing  like  this  in  regard  to  the  first 
day  ]  No  sir,  but  the  contrary.  Where  then  are 
we  to  look  for  the  Divine  examyle  precisely  tanta- 
mount to  that  given  to  man  in  the  beginning  ?  It 
cannot  be  found  in  the  acts  of  our  Lord. 

Neither     can    the    extraordinary    circumstances. 


19S  SABBATH     DISCVSSIOIS!. 

which  occurred  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  afford  any 
evidence  in  i'avor  of  the  first  day's  observance.  The 
evidence  is  veiy  conchasive  that  this  feast  did  not  fall 
on  this  day  of  the  week,  as  I  have  shown  in  a  former 
letter.  It  was  also  observed  as  Pentecost,  and  as 
such  pnly  does  the  inspired  historian  mention  it.^ — 
Those  events,  therefore,  however  great,  cannot  justly 
be  cgnsidered  as  con  fe ring  an  honor  on  any  day  of 
weekly  occurrence.  The  Scriptures  attach  no  im- 
parlance whatever  to  the  time  of  these  events  ;  nor 
does  it  appear  that  either  the  apostles  or  early  Chris- 
tians ever  so  understood  them. 

Tiic  meeting  of  the  disciples  in  Troas^  on  the  first 
dr^.y  of  the  week.  Acts  xx.  7,  is  confidcntlj^  cited  as 
eyrdencc  that  the  apostles  religiously  and  constantly 
observed  that  day.  The  circumstances  of  this  meet- 
ing) however,  seem  to  indicate  nothing  of  this  nature, 
ft  should  be  remembered  that  this  meeting  v/as  held 
nearly. thirty  years  after  that  on  which  Christ  was 
with  the  apostles  ;  and  during  this  period,  there  is 
not  a  syllable  in  any  of  the  sacred  writings  concern- 
ing the  first  day  ;  nor  have  we  the  least  evidence 
but  ti*adition,  that  a  meeting  of  any  kind  was  held 
by  the  disciples  on  this  day,  during  this  time,  excep- 
ting Acts  ii.  48,  where  they  are  said  to  have  "  con- 
tinued daily  icith  one  accord  in  the  temple.  ''  There 
is  nothing  in  the  account  given  of  this  meeting,  that 
ir-timates  that  it  was  held  in  accordance  with  an  es- 
rabiished  usage.  Had  it  been  proved  that  this  cus- 
tom had  been  previously  established,  this  meeting 
might  be  understood  as  being  in  conformity  with  it  ; 
but  as  it  does  not  appear  that  such  a  custom  had  ob- 
tained before  this  time,  it  is  in  open  violation  of  the 
laws  of  just  reasoning,  to  infer  from  this  particular 
meeting,  any  thing  like  a  general  practice.  It  ap- 
pears to  have  been  a  special   meeting  on    account  o^ 


SABBATH    DISCUSSION.  199 

Ihe  apostle's  departure  on  the  morrow  ;  and  was 
held  in  the  evening  and  through  the  night,  as  is  evi- 
dent from  the  sacred  narrative.  If  it  were  on  the 
first  day  of  the  week,  properly,  it  must  have  been  in 
the  evening  which  commenced  at  the  close  of  the 
weekly  Sabbath  ;  and  I  am  authorized  from  its  being 
the  mannero^  the  Apostle  to  preach  on  that  day. 
Acts  xvii.  2.  to  infer  that  he  preached  on  this  Sab- 
bath before  the  evening  meeting  commenced,  and 
probably  on  all  the  preceding  days  he  had  tarried  in 
T roas.  If  it  be  said  that  they  met  in  the  evening  fol- 
lowing the  first  day,  it  will  follow  as  a  consequence, 
that  the  meeting  was  held,  and  all  the  circumstances 
of  it  occurred  on  the  second,  day  of  the  week.  Un- 
derstand it  as  we  may,  it  can  afford  no  evidence  that 
the  first  day  was  held  sacred  by  them.  Much  stress 
is  laid  on  the  form  of  the  expression,  "  When  the 
disciples  came  together,  "  as  if  it  were  a  meeting  of 
course,  and  in  accordance  with  custom  that  they  met 
at  this  time  to  break  bread.  But  many  learned  men 
prefer  as  the  more  literal  construction  of  the  phrase, 
"  The  discijyJes  being  together.  "  Construe  it  as  we 
may,  it  does  not  prove  that  it  was  an  established 
custom  thus  to  meet.  In  short,  it  is  not  probable 
that  this  meeting  would  have  been  mentioned  at  all, 
but  for  the  case  of  Eutichus.  For  these  reasons,  I 
consider  this  meeting  in  Troas  as  affording  no  evi- 
dence of  a  constant  practice  of  keeping  the  first  day  : 
especially,  since  we  are  at  liberty  to  infer  thai  this 
day  was  regarded  as  a  day  of  labor.  Another  pas- 
sage cited  as  evidence  of  apostolic  regard  for  the  first 
day  of  the  week,  is  I  Cor.  xvi.  2.  "  Upon  the  first 
day  of  the  week,  let  every  one  of  you  lay  by  him 
[himself]  in  store,''  &c. 

The  evidence  afforded  by  this  text  for  the   fact  it 
is  cited  to  prove,  is  of  no   more  weight  than  the  one 
m2 


*J00  SABBATH    DISCtJSSION'. 

last  considered.  The  duty  here  enjoined,  to  wit,  to 
examine  their  pecuniary  circumstances,  and  lay  by 
themselves  in  store  as  God  had  prospered  them, 
would  be  more  proper  on  a  working  day,  than  the 
Sabbath.  The  order  enjoined  this  duty  on  one  day 
only,  without  intimating  that  it  should  be  repeated. 
It  related  to  one  Church  only,  and  was  limited  to  one 
object,  viz  ;  the  destitute  saints  in  Judea,  and  was 
uj  be  attended  to  within  a  limited  time,  viz  :  befoi-e 
Paul  arrived  at  Corinth.  We  are  not  informed  whv 
this  day  was  named  as  the  proper  season  to  attend 
to  this  duty,  and  we  are  not  at  liberty  to  supply  the 
deficiency  by  supposing  it  to  be  on  account  of  it& 
being  the  stated  day  of  worship,  for  there  is  no  proof 
of  this  fact. 

The  only  other  text  quoted  in  favor  of  the  practice 
in  question  is,  Rev.  i.  10,  "  I  was  in  the  spirit  on  the 
Lord's  day. ''  It  is  very  confidently  asserted  that 
when  the  Revelation  of  John  was  written,  the  first 
day  of  the  week  had  obtained  this  appellation,  and 
therefore  that  Lord's  day  in  this  text  could  meant 
HO  other.  But  as  this  name  to  a  particular  natural 
day  is  new,  occurring  no  where  else  in  the  sacred 
volume,  the  common  inference  as  to  its  meaning 
ought  not  to  be  acquiesced  in  without  examination. 
To  mo,  it  appears  more  Christian-like  to  search  the 
Scriptures  for  an  explanation  to  the  phraise,  than  to 
go  to  the  traditions  of  the  Church  which  originated 
iong  since  the  Revelation  was  written.  If  the  words 
fa  question  be  understood  to  refer  to  a  natural  day, 
they  seem  to  indicate  that  the  whole  of  it  was  to  be 
applied  to  the  Lord's  service,  which  was  never 
claimed  to  be  due  to  the  first  day  until  the  time  of 
the  Puritans.  Before  this  it  was  esteemed  only  as 
;i  Church  festival  or  holy  day.  In  searching  the 
Scriptures  for  an  explanation  o^ Lord's  day,  we  have 


SABBATH     DISCUSSION.  201 

presented  to  us  at  once    the  weekly  seventh  day,  the 
.Sabbath,  as  being  thus,  wholly  claimed  by  the  Lord, 
and  there  is  no  other.      In  regard  to  its  title,    Lord^s 
day,  the   terms  applied  to  the   Sabbath   very   nearly 
accord  with  it      In  Isaiah  Iviii.  13,  God  calls  the  Sab- 
bath *'My  holy  day.''      ^' The  holy  of   the  Lord.*' 
And  Christ  says  he  is  Lord  of  the  Sabbath  d^ay. — 
We  have  no  evidence  that  the  first  day  was  ever  call- 
ed Lord's  day  till  long  since  the  the  apostles'  time.    If 
these  words  were  designed  by  the  apostles  to  point  out 
any  one  particular  day  of  the  week,  the  seventh  day 
is  the  only  one  corresponding  with  this  title.      Mr. 
Burnside,  however,  is  not  of  this  opinion  concerning 
the  design  of  this  phrase,  as  you  have  asserted,  (  Let- 
ter 9,  Oct.  2. )      He  states,  p.  199,  (Lend.  Ed.  ),  "  I 
have  no  doubt  that  the  phrase  in  question  does  mean 
the  common   Sunday,  and  no  other  day. "     But  he 
adds,   '*  I  am  fully  persuaded  that  the  apostle  John 
never  wrote  these  words  —  that  they  are  an  interpo- 
lation, and  that  a  very  recent  one.  "     For  this  opinion, 
he  assigns  the  following  reasons  :   1.   That  it  would 
not  be  likely  for  the  apostle  to  use  a  new  term,  appa- 
rently indicating  a  religious  duty,  without  giving  some 
explanation  of  it.     2.   That,  if  the  apostle  had  written 
the  expressions,  and  meant  the  weekly  first  day,  he 
would  unquestionably  have  called  it  by  the  new  name 
in  his  Gospel,  which,  he  says,  is  agreed  on  all  hands, 
he  wrote  after  the  Revelation.     3.    He  quotes  from 
Morer,  who  gives  several  instances  where  the  term 
Lord's  day  had  been  interpolated  ;  and  that  Beza  de- 
clares that  he  found  it  in  an  ancient  Greek  copy  of  the 
New  Testament,  after  "  the  first  day  of  the  tveek,'^ 
the  hordes  day,  as  exegitical.      4.   That   none  of  the 
early  fathers,  excepting  Ignatius,  ever  used  the  term 
Lord's  day,  till  about  the  close  of  the  second  century, 
and  he  doubts  whether  Ignatius  ever  did.     And  finally, 


'i02  SABBATH     DISCUSSION. 

that  the  early  fathers,  when  pleading  for  the  obser- 
vance of  the  first  day,  never  quote  this  passage  from 
Revelation  ;  nor  the  authority  of  the  apostles,  as  all 
modern  writers  do  ;  which  they  would  not  have  failed 
doing,  had  they  known  these  words  were  there.  The 
words,  if  inserted  by  the  author  of  the  Revelation, 
may  refer  to  the  day  of  judgment,  which  he  witnessed 
by  prophetic  vision.  This,  in  the  New  Testament, 
is  called  bv  terms  equivalent  to  the  Lord's  day.  See 
Phil.  i.  6.  ^I  Cor.  V.  5.  II  Cor.  i.  14.  I  Thes.  v.  12, 
and  II  Peter  iii.  10.  These  references  aiford  the  best 
scriptural  exposition  of  the  words  Lord's  day,  in  my 
opinion,  and  should  not,  without  due  consideration, 
be  rejected.  As  confidently,  therefore,  as  it  is  assert- 
ed, that  the  first  day  of  the  week  is,  by  inspiration, 
called  Lord^s  day,  it  is  without  any  satisfactory 
proof. 

I  have  now  gone  through  with  all  that  is  adduced 
from  the  Scriptures,  which  is  entitled  to  a  serious  con- 
sideration on  this  subject ;  and  it  must  be  apparent  to 
every  discerning  Christian,  whose  mind  is  unbiased, 
that  the  Scriptures  do  not  afford  a  divine  example  or 
commandment,  nor  the  example  or  precept  of  the 
apostles,  to  warrant  the  observance  of  the  first  day  of 
the  week. 

I  have  only  one  more  class  of  evidence  to  consider, 
which,  with  some  concluding  remarks,  I  must  reserve 
for  another  communication. 

I  remain  your  unworthy  friend  and  brother, 

W.  B.  MAXSON. 


,ETTER    XX. 


To  THE  Rev.  Wm.  Parkinson. 

Januarij  1,  and  8,  1S36. 
Dear  Brother, — I  will  now  notice  the  further  evi- 
<lence  adduced  in  favor  of  the  early  sanctification  of,  the 
first  day  of  the  v.'eek,  promised  in  my  last  letter.  You 
will  readily  understand  me  to  allude  to  what  is  cited 
from  the  Christian  Fathers.  1  must  say  however,  that 
I  believe  there  is  but  very  little  confidence  put  in 
\vhat  is  afloat,  as  coming  from  them,  on  the  subject  in 
question  ;  even  by  those  who  have  quoted  them. — 
Bishop  Fell  observes,  "  that  the  first  ages  of  the 
Church  took  such  liberties  in  counterfeiting,  and  were 
so  very  busy  in  believing,  that  the  credit  of  their  his- 
tory is  very  much  weakened  thereby  ;  and  not  only 
the  world,  but  the  Church  of  God  has  just  cause  to 
complain  of  her  fabulous  times.  This  is  confirmed 
by  Dyonisius,  quoted  by  Eusehius.  He  says,  "  as  the 
brethren  desired  me  to  write  epistles,  I  wrote  them, 
and  these  the  apostles  of  the  devil  have  filled  with 
tares;  exchanging  some  things  and  adding  others.— - 
Is  it  not,  therefore,  matter  of  wonder,  if  some  have  at- 
tempted to  adulterate  the  sacred  writings  of  the  Lord  : 
since  they  have  attempted  the  same  in  other  works, 
that  are  not  to  be  compared  with  these.  "  The  same 
is  implied  by  Irengeus  in  his   treatise    on  the    Ogdoad, 


204  SABBATH     DISCUSSrON^.  "^ 

where  he  adjures  by  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  those  who 
copy  his  work,  to  insert  nothing  in  the  copy  that  was 
not  in  the  original.  Very  little  reliance  can,  therefore, 
be  placed  in  what  is  quoted  from  their  writings  j  espe- 
cially in  deciding  a  Christian  duty.  But  could  we  be 
assured  that  they  wrote  what  is  ascribed  to  them,  no 
duty,  or  doctrine  could  be  settled  thereby  ;  for  they 
were  uninspired  men.  Nor  do  they  pretend  to  have 
the  authority,  even  of  an  apostle,  for  what  they  are  re- 
ported to  have  said  relative  to  the  observance  of  the 
first  day  of  the  week.  If  the  Scripures  enjoin  the  du- 
ty ;  all  they  have,  or  could  have  said,  would  not 
strengthen  it  :  but  as  we  have  seen  they  do  not,  all 
that  the  fathers  have  said  or  done  on  this  subject,  is  as 
light  as  a  feather  in  the  estimation  of  a  consistent  Protes- 
tant. But  as  quotations  from  these  writers  are  pres- 
sed with  great  confidence,  and  as  many  believe  that  in 
proportion  to  their  proximity  to  the  time  of  the  apos- 
tles, they  may  be  relied  upon  as  apostolic,  it  may  be 
proper  to  notice  them. 

Respecting  the  quotation  you  have  cited  from  Igna- 
tius, justice  to  my  readers  requires  me  to  observe,  that 
but  little  confidence  ought  to  be  placed  in  it  ;  for  it  is 
not  very  probable  that  Ignatius  ever  wrote  it.  There 
must  be  a  wide  difference  in  the  editions  of  his  epis- 
tles ;  for  that  which  I  have  by  me  has  nothing  in  it 
that  can  be  construed  to  mean  any  thing  in  favor  of 
keeping  the  first  day  of  the  week.  Instead  of  recom- 
mending the  observation  of  the  Lord's  day,  he  exhorts 
the  Magnesians  to  live  according  to  the  Lord's  life. 
In  another  edition  of  the  same  epistle,  he  is  made  to 
say,  "  After  keeping  the  Sabbath,  let  every  lover  of 
Christ  keep  as  a  festival  the  Lord's  day.  **  It  is  there- 
fore certain  that  thio  ejiistle  is  interpolated,  if  the  quo- 
tation is  fairly  made.  AVhat  Archbishop  Wake  has 
said  of  the  epistle  of  Ignatius,  is   unquestionably  true, 


'^  SABBATH    DISCUSSION.  205 

viz  :  "  That  the  best  editions  extant,  contain  many 
labrications,  the  genuine  being  altered  and  corrupted." 
I  am,  therefore,  surprized,  that  you  should  have  in- 
troduced the  quotation  as  testimony,  (  withholding  that 
part  which  injoins  the  keeping  of  the  Sabbath, )  without 
informing  the  reader  that  no  confidence  ought  to  be 
placed  in  it ;  since  you  must  have  been  apprized  of 
these  disqualifying  circumstances.  But  taking  the 
words  in  the  sense  in  which  you  have  quoted  them, 
we  may  fairly  infer  that  the  Sabbath,  and  not  the  first 
day  of  the  ^veek^vas  observed  by  the  JMagnesians. — 
For  it  is  unaccountable  why  he  should  exhort  them  no 
longer  to  ohserve  the  Sabbath,  if  they  were  not  in  the 
observance  of  it  ;  or  that  he  should  urge  them  to  ob- 
serve the  first  day,  if  they  already  kept  it.  The  cita- 
tion from  Justin  Martyr  would  be  as  little  to  the  pur- 
pose as  that  from  Ignatius,  if  fairly  quoted.  Although 
lie  says,  the  Christians  assembled  together  on  Sunday, 
(as he  calls  it, )  and  attended  to  certain  religious  exer- 
cises ;  he  farther  adds,  that  when  this  was  over,  they 
all  returned  to  their  labor.  This,  therefore,  stands  op- 
posed to  the  practice  plead  for ;  and  goes  to  prove  that 
a  part  of  the  day  only  was  used  for  religious  purposes, 
and  the  remainder  devoted  to  labor.  This  relates  to 
about  the  middle  of  the  second  century. 

There  appears  to  be  an  unwarrantable  anxiety  felt 
to  impress  upon  the  minds  of  the  Christian  world,  the 
(Opinion  that  the  early  Christians  kept  the  first  day  of 
the  week  to  the  exclusion  of  the  seventh.  And  this 
has  urged  good  men  to  make  statements  not  supported 
by  substantial  testmiony,  and  to  quote  erroneously, 
( I  hope  innocently,  )  without  proper  examination. — 
But  in  all  that  is  qu:oted  from  these  Christian  fathers,  it 
does  not  appear  that  one  of  them  has  said  the  Sab- 
bath was  not  observed  according  to  the  ancient  usage, 
nor  that  they  had  the  example,  or  authority    of  Christ, 


206  SABBATH    DISCUSSION. 

or  the  apostles  for  what  they  did  in  regard  to  tlie  first 
day ;  or  even  intimated  that  it  was,  or  should  be  ob- 
served as  a  day  of  rest  from  labor.  And  it  does  not 
appear  fi-om  any  thing  exhibited  in  this  discussion,  that 
such  a  claim  was  ever  made  for  the  first  day  until  it 
was  made  by  the  Reformers,  about  two  hundred  years 
since.  And  I  am  safe  in  saying  that  there  is  none, 
either  in  the  New  Testament,  or  in  the  writings  of  the 
Christian  fathers;  for  had  there  been,  the  unwearied  ef- 
forts of  Protestant  divines  and  commentators  would  not 
liave  failed  to  bring  it  forth.  Nor  can  it  be  shown 
that  Christians  of  any  order  ever  attempted  to  found 
the  observance  of  the  first  day  upon  the  Scriptures  un- 
till  it  was  done  by  the  Puritans  a  little  more  than  t\\'o 
centuries  ago. 

Respect  was  unquestionably  paid  to  the  first  day  of 
the  week  in  an  early  age  of  the  Church.  The  first 
notice  ( that  may  be  relied  upon  )  Vvdiich  w^e  have  of  it, 
is  not  far  from  the  middle  of  the  second  century.  It 
appears  to  have  been  adopted  purely  as  a  festival  in 
memory  of  the  resurrection  ;  and  this  practice  contin- 
ued down  to  the  time  we  have  noticed  ;  and  as  late  as 
the  early  part  of  the  eighteenth  century.  According  to 
Byrnside,  the  Parliament  in  England  met  on  Sundays 
and  transacted  business.  From  what  I  have  stated, 
the  first  day  never  was  observed  until  within  about 
hundred  years,  if  abstinence  from  labor  be  essential  to 
its  observance.  The  religious  regard  for  this  day 
commenced  with  the  fathers,  as  did  the  sixth  day  of 
the  week  which  was  kept  in  memory  of  the  crucifix- 
ion, as  did  all  the  other  festivals  of  the  Church,  not  by 
coimnandment,  nor  by  exainjih,  but  by  their  own  au- 
tliority  :  for  they  plead  for  no  other.  Of  this  opinion, 
was  the  celebrated  reformer  Calvin,  who  says,  "  The 
old  fathers  put  in  the  place  of  the  Sabbath,  the  day 
called  Sunday.  " 


SABBATH    DISCUSSION. 


207 


I  readily  admit,  that  in  the  present  time,  the  entire 
sanctification  of  this  day  is  insisted  upon  very  general- 
ly by  Protestants,  and  that  a  partial  observance  of  it 
has  obtained  generally  in  Christian  coimtries  ;  but  this 
is  no  evidence  that  God  desigTied  it  should  be  so,  as 
some  erroneously  suppose.  Nor  can  it  be  said  with 
more  propriety,  that  he  would  not  have  suffered  so 
gi-eat  a  m.ultitude  of  Christians  to  fall  into  so  great  an 
error,  as  to  disregard  the  day  which  he  had  sanctified 
and  blessed,  and  adopt  another  without  his  approba- 
tion. Let  such  as  think  so,  auk  themselves,  whether 
Cxod  has  ever  approved  of  the  miserable  errors  of  the 
Papists  i  Whether  it  is  with  his  approbation  that 
Pedobaptists  discard  the  Scriptural  rite  of  baptism  ? 
And  they  will  find  a  refutation  of  the  pleas  suggested 
above.  God  did  not  prevent  the  Church  from  going 
into  the  wilderness  ;  and  a  thick  darkness  to  enveloj) 
her.  In  this  moral  night  the  rite  of  baptism  \vas  cast 
away,  and  one  substituted  for  which  no  authority  can 
be  found  in  the  Scriptures.  Tares  in  abundance  were 
so^vn  while  the  Church  slept.  It  was  after  the  Churcli 
assumed  the  authority  of  the  Almighty,  that  she  dared 
openly  to  renounce  the  Sabbath.  There  can  be  but 
little  cause  of  surprise,  that  Christians  in  general  re- 
main in  the  practice  of  their  errors  ;  it  cannot  be  said 
that  they  are  fully  persuaded  in  their  own  minds  that 
their  practice  in  these  things  is  scriptural ;  and  but  for 
the  strong  influence  exerted  over  them  by  those  in  re- 
sponsible stations,  they  would  long  since  have  forsakeq 
them. 

In  drawing  the  subject  discussed  in  these  letters  to 
a  close,  it  may  be  useful  to  advert  to  the  principle  points 
urged  upon  the  reader's  consideration,  that  he  may  have 
them  more  immediately  before  him.  On  some  of  these 
important  points  we  happily  agree.  We  concur  in  the 
opinion  that  the  weekly  Sabbath  was  instituted  immedi- 


208  SABBATH    DISCUSSION. 

ately  after  the  works  of  creation  were  finished  : — Tliat 
it  was  made  and  sanctified  for  man  —  given  to  Adam, 
and  enjoined  npon  his  posterity  :  That  it  was  the 
same  successive  seventh  day  that  was  observed 
by  the  patriarchs,  —  recognized  by  the  fourth  com- 
mandment of  the  decalogue,  and  enjoined  on  the  peo- 
ple of  Israel,  as  were  the  other  nine  precepts  of  the 
moral  law.  Thus  far  Ave  have  gone  together.  But 
you  then  deny  that  the  Sabbath  of  the  fourth  com- 
mandment was  ever  required  of  any  people  but  nation- 
al Israel.  This  I  consider  a  denial  of  your  former  po- 
sition, to  wit,  that  the  whole  posterity  of  Adam  Avere 
under  obligation  to  observe  the  same  seventh  day 
])efore  the  law  was'  given  to  Israel.  The  grounds 
for  believing  the  Sabbath  to  be  limited  to  Israel,  you 
have  stated  to  be,  1.  That  it  was  not  ^  onwal  but  a 
jiositivc  laAv,  You  infer  this  from  the  supposed  silence 
of  the  Ne\v  Testament  respecting  this  duty  ;  and  from 
the  fact  that  Christ  performed  cures,  and  justified  his 
disciples  in  gathering  the  corn  and  eating,  as  they  passed 
through  the  fields  on  the  Sabbath,  &c.  In  my  reply, 
(  Oct.  18,  )  I  think  I  proved  satisfactorily,  that  the  in- 
stitution of  the  Sabbath  Nvas  moral,  because  necessary 
to  the  celebration  of  God's  glorious  perfections,  which 
is  acknov.dedged  to  be  a  moral  duty  and  incumbent  on 
all  men.  That  although  the  a]:)poiiitment  of  the  sev- 
«?nth  day  was  of  a  ^o*/^/re  nature, — yet  God  could 
have  annulled  the  seventh  day,  and  appointed  another, 
and  made  the  week  to  consist  of  more  or  less  days 
than  seven,  had  there  been  a  suflicient  reason  for  so 
doing.  Still,  as  the  act  of  instituting  the  Sabbath  con- 
sisted solely  in  the  appointment  of  the  sev'enth  day  ;  to 
have  repealed  this  appointment,  w^ould  have  been  to 
annihilate  the  institution.  Another  appointment  must 
jiave  made  it  another  institution  ;  for  the  reason  as- 
signed for  the  appointment  of  the  seventh   day,   would 


SABBATH    DISCUSSION.  209 

apply  to  no  other  day,  viz.  Tliat  God  rested  upon  it 
from  all  his  works.  Nor  could  any  other  portion  of 
time  or  any  other  day  of  the  week,  have  been  learned 
hy  the  example  of  Grod. 

Hence  it  is,  that  keeping-  the  first  day  of  the  week 
instead  of  the  last,  is  a  subversion  of  the  original  insti- 
tution, not  being-  in  accordance  with  the  divine  exam- 
ple. I  admitted  that  the  appointment  of  the  seventh 
day  was  purely  of  a  positive  nature  ;  but  I  proved  that 
all  men  ^vere  under  moral  obligation  to  regard  it,  when 
once  it  was  made  known  to  them  ;  it  being  a  dictate  of 
moral  la\v,  that  all  God's  revealed  will  should  be  obeyed. 
I  have  also  shown  that  this  law,  was  not  without  de- 
sign, associated  with  the  other  precepts  of  the  deca- 
logue, written  with  them  on  tables  of  stone,  and  de- 
livered in  the  same  solemn  manner  ;  and  that  this  design 
must  have  been  to  impress  the  minds  of  all  who  heard 
them,  that  they  were  alike  sacred.  As  you  have  ad- 
mitted that  the  decalogue  was  a  verbal  copy  of  the 
law  of  nature,  so  I  have  shown  that  it  v/as  designed 
to  extend  its  influence  over  the  whole  posterity  of  Ad- 
am, in  all  ages  of  the  world.  That  as  such,  Christ,  in 
his  sermon  on  the  mount,  has  confirmed  every  jot  and 
tittle  of  it  as  a  rule  of  moral  conduct  for  the  Church 
to  the  end  of  time  ;  and  that  he  has  made  it  essential 
to  the  Christian  character  of  his  disciples,  that  they 
comply  with  all  its  injunctions.  That  as  the  laws  of 
the  decalogue,  Avithout  any  excerptions  are  frequently 
enjoined  by  Christ  and  the  apostles  ;  therefore,  the 
New  Testament  is  not  silent  respecting  the  fourth 
commandment,  as  you  have  supposed.  I  have  also 
shown  that  the  acts  of  Christ  and  the  disciples  on  the 
Sabbath  were  not  opposed  to  the  spirit  and  design  of 
the  fourth  commandment,  and  therefore,  afford  no  evi- 
denco'that  the  institution  was  not  moral,  or  designed 
only  for  the  Jews  ;   or  that  it  was  typical  of  the    Gos- 


210  SABBATH    DISCUSSION, 

fel    dispensation,  a.nd  ready  to  vanish  away.     I  think 
have  fairly  met  the  arguments  you  have  adduced    to 
show  that  the  Sabbath  was  jieculiar  to  Israel  : 

1.  You  urge  that  the  whole  decalogue,  and  there- 
fore the  fourth  commandment,  was  delivered  only  to 
that  peojile.  Here  I  have  shown,  that  if  this  be  al- 
lowed to  prove  any  thing  to  the  point,  it  proves  too 
much  ;  for  it  would  make  all  these  laws  peculiar  to 
them,  and  we  know  they  were  not.  By  this  argu- 
ment, too,  you  virtually  admit  that  when  Christ  en- 
joined on  his  disciples  the  whole  decalogue,  (Matt.  v. 
19,)  he  necessarily  enforced  the  fourth  comm.andment, 
with  all  it  enjoins. 

2.  In  support  of  this  j^osition,  you  say  that  the 
Sabbath  was  a  sign  between  God  and  them,  of  a  pe- 
culiar relation.  I  have  shown  that  this  proved  nothing 
to  the  point,  from  the  fact,  that  the  surrounding  nations 
were  sunk  in  idolatry,  and  did  not  regard  any  ordi- 
nance of  God  as  they  should. — That  the  due  obser- 
vance of  the  Sabbath,  as  well  as  the  other  laws  of 
God,  would  be  a  sign  between  God  and  his  people, 
as  it  always  has  been,  is  now,  and  always  will  be. 

3.  For  further  proof  you  refer  me  to  Ex.  xix.  5-8, 
and  xxxi.  16.  Lev.  xxiv.  8.  Hos.  ii.  11,  andCol.  ii.l5,  16. 
noticing  these  references  with  their  contexts,  I  have 
shown  that  they  have  no  bearing  upon  the  subject. 

4.  You  state,  that  as  the  Jews  only  \vere  subject 
to  the  deadly  penalty  of  violating  the  fourth  command- 
ment, it  is  decisive  evidence  that  it  "was  peculiar  to 
them.  The  same  difficulty  attends  this  however,  that 
does  your  first  argument  —  if  it  proves  any  thing,  it 
proves  too  much. ;  for  the  same  penalty  was  to  be  in- 
flicted for  the  violation  of  the  other  precepts  of  the 
decalogue,  which  was  admitted  to  be  obligatory  uj^on 
the  whole  world.     And  — 

5.  Because  the  Sabbath  was  not  mentioned  amon^- 


SABBATH    DISCUSSION.  21X 

die  necessary  tilings,  (  Acts  xv.  28,  )  you  infer  tliat  it 
was  binding'  on  none  but  national  Israel.  I  have  sta- 
ted tliat  this  omission  can  be  no  evidence  that  it  was 
not  binding,  since  almost  every  thing  necessary  and  ob- 
ligatory upon  the  Church  was  also  omitted.  Hence  it 
is  evident  that  your  position  was  not  sustained. 

Jammry  8,  183G. 
In  your  letter  of  April  10th,  you  stated,  and  satis- 
factorily proved  that  the  Sabbath  was  instituted  imme- 
diately at  the  close  of  creation.  I  have  concurred 
with  you  in  this  sentiment ;  but  I  am  of  the  -  opin- 
ion that  you  have  hereby  disproved  your  preceding- 
arguments,  which  go  to  show  that  the  Sabbath  Vv^as  pe- 
culiar to  Israel.  For  it  is  evident,  that  if  the  observa- 
tion of  the  seventh  day  was  obligatory  upon  the  whole 
posterity  of  Adam,  before  the  law  was  given  to  nation- 
al Israel,  as  you  have  proved  ;  if  the  Gentile  nations 
w^cre  not  exonerated  from  it  they  were  still  bound  to 
observe  it ;  therefore  it  could  not  be  peculiar  to  a  par- 
ticular nation.  And  this  is  the  more  apparent  from 
your  subsequent  communication,  (  July  17, )  in  which 
you  prove  at  length  tliat  the  seventh  day  recognized 
by  the  fourth  commandment,  was  the  same  day  in 
weekly  return  which  God  originally  sanctified  and 
blessed  ;  and  that  by  the  Sahbath  of  the  fourth  cam- 
manclment  you  only  meant  th.e  pecLiliar  manner  in 
which  the  Jews  were  required  to  keep  it.  This  how- 
ever was  not  a  point  at  issue  between  us  ;  for  I  have 
never  contended  that  the  patriarchs  before  the  exodus 
of  Israel  from  Egypt;  or  the  Gentiles  since  Christ, 
were,  ever  required  to  observe  the^Sabbath  as  the  JeVv^s 
were  under  the  Mosaic  dispensation  ;  nor  were  my 
arguments  on  this  point  designed  to  prove  it.  I  inten- 
ded by  the  Sahhath  of  the  fourth  coimnand'nieJit,  the 
seventh  day  of  the  week  as  enjoined  by  the  example  of 


212  SABBATH    DISCUSSION. 

God,  and  by  tlie  fourth  commandment  ;  and  as  requi- 
red of  the  Israelites  hy  subsequent  laws  and  penalties. 
Tlic  difference  between  the  Sabbath  of  the  orig-inal  in* 
stitution,  and  that  of  the  fourth  commandment  consist^, 
ed  solely  in  the  manner  of  its  promulgation,  and  you 
have  attempted  to  sho^v  no  other.  If,  as  you  have  sta- 
ted, the  patriarchal  Sabbath  was  promulgated  by  ex- 
ample, and  not  by  commandment,  (  of  whichyou  can- 
not be  certain  )  I  have  shown  it  to  be  not  the  less  im- 
perious. And  if,  as  you  suppose,  there  was  no  ex- 
pressed penalty  for  its  violation  ;  at  the  same  time 
admitting  that  its  neglect  evinced  great  ingratitude  and 
impiety  ;  I  have  sho^vn  that  there  was  a  penalty  im- 
plied equally  deadly,  which  God  would  inflict  by  hig 
own  hand.  We  agree  that  the  seventh  day  recogni- 
zed by  the  fourth  commandment,  was  the  same  from 
the  beginning,  through  every  dispensation  to  the  giv- 
ing of  the  law,  and  that  it  was  obligatory  on  the  whole 
family  of  man.  Of  its  abrogation,  you  have  given  no 
proof,  except  what  relates  to  the  Jewish  ritual.  Nor 
have  you  shown  wherein  the  duties  enjoined  by  the 
fourth  commandment  differed  from  those  taught  by  the 
example  of  God.  He  taught  them  by  his  example  to 
rest  from  all  their  work  on  the  seventh  day  ;  the  com- 
mand taught  the  same,  with  extending  its  benefits  to 
servants  and  beasts  ;  \vliich  could  not  have  been  learn- 
ed l)y  this  example.  I  have  also  exhibited  the  fitness 
of  the  original  Sabbath  for  the  worship  of  the  Christian, 
as  well  as  for  the  former  dispensations,  and  have  met 
candidly  ( if  not  in  your  estimation  effectually)  your 
objections  to  it  in  favor  of  the  first  day  of  the  week. — 
You  have  stated  the  first  day  was  emphatically  the  day 
of  creation,  and  therefore,  the  most  proper  season  to 
commemorate  the  t^vo  great  works,  Creation  and  Re- 
demption. 1  have  argued  that  this  reason  was  as  good 
^vhen  God  began  his  \vork  as  it   ever  has   been   since, 


SABBAf H    DISCUSSION.  21^ 

aiid  that  he  had  decided  otherwise  by    appointing   the 
last  day  of  the  week.     Again.     You  say  the  hrst  day 
was  validhj  the  day  of  Redemption  by    the   i-esiirrec- 
tion  of  Christ  on  this  day.     I  have  j^roved   the    uncer- 
tainty of  this  ;  and  that,  could  it  be  ever  so  clc>arly  pro- 
ved, it  would  not  render  it  the  most  proper  season   for 
Christian  worship,  without  a    Divine   appointment    to 
this  effect.     Again.     You  have    plead    iis  fitness    for 
tliis  purpose,  from  the  supposition  that  the  manna,  began 
to  fall  in  the  wilderness  on  this  day  —  that  it  was  typ- 
ical   of    Gospel  gTace,    and    from  the  extraordinary 
out-pouring  of  the    Spirit  on   the   day    of   2:)entecost  ; 
which  you  are  confident  was  upon  the    first    day.       I 
have  considered  it  a  sufficient  refutation  of  this    argu- 
ment that  the  main  point,  viz.  the  falling  of  die   manna 
on  the  first  day  of  the  week,  was  merely   an    assump- 
tion and    that  no    certain    conclusions  can    be    dra^vn 
from  uncertain  premises.     I  have    (  Letter  7,  Dec.  4  ) 
proved  l)eyond  successful  contradiction  that    the  sev- 
enth day  Sabbath  was  recognized  and  observed  by  the 
apostolic  and  primitive  Church.     I  have  also    (  Letter 
8,  Dec.  11  )  investigated  the  claims  of  the  first  day   of 
the  week  ;   and  I   have     adduced   evidence    tliat   the 
most  prominent  act  of  our  Lord  in  the  work  of  redemp- 
tion, was  dying  for  our  sins  :  that  the    Scriptures    are 
uniformly  explicit  on   this   point  ;    and  therefore,    the 
day  of  his  death  was  validly  the    day  |of  Redemption, 
rather  than  the  day  of  his  resurrection.       I    have  also 
evinced  the  improbability  of  the  crucifixion    occurring 
on  the  sixth  day,  from  the  probability   that  three   days 
and  three  nights  were  accomplished  in   the  sepulchre. 
— -From  the  uncertainty    that  these    three    days    and 
three  nights    were  counted   by  any  peculiar   Jewish 
method  of  reckoning. — From  the  fact  that  Christ    was 
interred  nearly  at  sunset,  and  that    the   pious  females 
who  attended,  returned  to  the  city  and  prepared  oint- 

N 


tl4  SABBATH    DISCUSSION.' 

ments  and  spices  before  the  weekly  Sabbath  commeiv 
ced  ;  I  inferred  the  probabihty  that  a  day  in  which  it 
was  lawful  to  labor  intervened  between  the  burial  and 
the  commencement  of  the  weekly  Sabbath  on  which- 
they  rested,  1  evinced  tlje  improbability  that  tho 
great  Sabbath  which  inimed lately  followed  the  cru- 
cifixion was-  the  weekly  Sabbath,  from  the  foct,  that- 
the  feasts  of  unleavened-bread  was  uniformly  and 
scripturally  called  a  Sabbath,  let  it  fall  on  which  day 
of  the^  week  it  may.  And  also  from  the  prophecy  of 
Daniel,  which  ]>oints  out  the  fourth  day  of  the  week  as 
the  day  on  which  Christ  slioald  be  crucified.  Hence 
the  evening  of  the  Sabbath  was  marked  as  the  predict- 
cMitime  of  th:?  resurrection,  agreeably  to  the  record  in 
Matt,  xxviii.  1.  And  have  shown  that  the  Scriptures 
present  the  least  difficulty  upon  this  calculation.  You 
have  gone  to  some  length  to  prove  that  Christ  ate  his 
last  passover  a  day  sooner  than  tlie  time  appointed 
by  the^letw.  In  my  reply  I  proved  (as  I  believe  )  that 
tlie  Jews  made  void  the  law  through  their  tradition, 
aaid  deferred  eating  it  to  a  day  later  than  the  legal  time ;. 
but  th^  Christ  fLdfilled  the  law  in  this  particular,  afl 
well  as  in  all  other  things.  Hence,  I  have  proved 
that  the  subsequent  feasts  of  Pentecost  did  not  fall  up- 
on the  Brst  day  of  the  week  as  is  frequently  asserted. 
In  my  last  letter  I  have  explained  to  you  the  grounds 
ofihe  objection  to  the  supplied  word,  day^  in  the  trans- 
lation of  Vila  ton  sabhatofi,  by  showing  that  it  literally 
signlfios,  one  of  the  Sabbaths,  and  that  it  is  doubtful 
whether  it  were  ever  rendered  the  first  day  of  tha 
week,  until  Protestants  so  construed  it,  I  have  also 
attentively  noticed  all  the  acts  of  our  Lord  and  his  dis- 
ciples, referred  to,  as  conferring  honor  upon  this  day  ; 
or  as  pointing  it  out  as  the  proper  season  for  Christian 
worship,  and  have  fully  shown  that  they  afford  neither 
example  nor  precept  for  its  observance.     And   finally, 


SABBATH    DISCUSSION.  215 

fKave  evinced  the  impropriety  of  introducing-  as  evF- 
<ience  of  the  first  day's  divine  right  to  sanctification, 
the  unauthenticated  and  contradictory  testimony  of  the 
Christian  Fathers — that  at  most,  th6y  prove  no  more 
than  that  some  Christians  in  the  fo ruler  part  of  the  sec- 
ond century,  who  wer'e  inclined  to  the  Romish  suprem- 
acy, observed  it  as  a  festival  of  the  resurrection,  using 
a  part  of  the  day  in  their  ordinar^^  avocations.  It  is  in 
vain  to  deny  these  facts,  and  wrong  to  assert  as  some 
do,  that  Christians  never  after  the  resurrection  assem- 
bled for  worship,  and  the  celebration  of  the  ordinances 
on  the  Sabbath  ;  for  I  have  proved  in  these  letters  by 
tlie  best  testimony  the  nature  of  the  case  will  admit, 
that  it  was  observed  a  number  of  centuries  by  nearly  all 
tlie  Churches  in  the  world. 

The  conclusions  fairly  deduced  from  the  unvarnished 
exhibitions  contained  in  these  letters,  are,  1.  That  the 
Sabbath  orio^lnally  instituted,  was  neither  abrogated 
nor  changed  by  the  Gospel  dispensation.  2.  That  the 
observance  of  the  first  day  of  the  week,  cither  as  a  sub- 
stituted for  the  seventh  or  as  a  memorial  cf  the  resur- 
rection, is  not  authorized  by  Divine  or  apostolic  exam- 
ple. 3.  That  the  obsin'va'i33  of  this  day  was  adopted 
by  certain  leaders  of  the  Christian  Church,  as  a  memo- 
rial of  the  resurrection  since  the  time  of  the  apostles, 
up'jn  their  own  responsibility.  4.  That  it  was  not  con- 
sidered by  them  Improper  to  labor  upon  it ;  and  that 
for  several  centuries,  it  did  not  Intei^fere  with  the  obser^ 
VanCe  of  the  seventh  day.  5.  That  after  many  Ineffec- 
tual efforts  of  the  clergy,  and  ecclesiastic  il  councils,  to 
sustain  something  like  a  decent  regard  for  both  days, 
the  Sabbath  by  their  authority  was  renounced  ;  prefer- 
ring the  day  of  their  own  appointing,  to  that  which 
God  had  sanctified.  6.  That  at  the  time  of  the  refor- 
mation, our  ancestors  found  themselves  in  the  obser- 
vance of  the  first  day  of  the  week,  instead  of  the  Sab= 
n2 


21iQ>  sAjJij^XH,   Discusjsjojjr. 

hdtXh, ;  as  well  a^s  of  infant  as-per^sion,  iipistesd  of  adult 
baptism.  In^  shaking  off  Popery,  they  retained  these 
ei^iTpr?,  and  tlieny  but  not  till  then,  they  attempted  to. 
SLLgta-iii  them  by  the  Scriptures.  Hence,  all  the  thep- 
n§§,  ( fo;'  they  are  many  )  which  are  resorted  to  for  thp, 
pW'pQse  of  viAdicating  the  observaace  of  the  first  day 
of,  the  week  are  unsound,  being  foimded  in  errone- 
<Ais_  .assumptions ;  and  consequently,  the  arguments. 
used  in  their  support,  however  logically  conducted, 
must,  lead  to  fallacious  results.  7.  That  this  practice, 
W^ich  M'as  at  first  unauthorized  by  any  divine^sanction,. 
s^:l  remained  unauthorized,  and  as  it  M'as  then  a  ma- 
king void  thela^v  of  God  through  hunian  tradition,  it  is 
the  same  now ;  and  every,  man  is  imder  obligation  to  re- 
turn to  the  duty  God  has  commanded,  whatever  sacrifi- 
ces he  may  be  called,  to  make.  And  as  the  most  effect- 
ual means  of  saving  the  Church,  and  our  beloved  coun- 
tij^r  from  the  manacles  of  Popery,  we  should  divest 
ourselves  of  ev^ry,  vestige  of  Romish  corruption. 

.  You  will  see,  my  dear  brother,  that  I  have  not 
]iaa:ticularly  noticed  all  the  arguments  you  have  used; 
as  my  object  has  not  been  to  dispute,  but  to  e;xhibit. 
\vh.a.t  I  believe  to  be  the  truth,  according  to  word  of 
God.  In  some  instances  I  have  thought  it  sufficient, 
to.  disprove  your  premises,  or  show  their  uncertainty, 
noticing  such  of  your  arguments  only  as  offered  objec- 
tions to  my  views  of  the,  subject.  As  far  as  the"  senti- 
ments I  have  advocated  prevail,  the  law  of  God  will  be 
brought  to  bear  upon  the  conscience.  This  alone  can 
lq,y  its  injunctions  upon  the,  vast  majchinery  of  this 
busy  world,  and  stop  it  one  day  in  seven.  And  the 
authority  of  God  is  equally  necessary  to  procure  in. 
Cha'istians  a  conscientious  regard  for  the  day  of  rest]and 
deyotion.  If  the  observation  of  the  Sabbath  be 
viewed  as  a  moral  duty,  (  as  I  believe  it  to  be, )  the, 
world,  as   well  as  the  Church,  is  bound  to  regard  it  ; 


but  consideriiig  it  only  in  the  light  of  a  Gospel  memo- 
rial, I  see  not  how  it  can  be  the  duty  of  the  ullcon- 
T-erted  to  rega,rd  it,  any  more  than  other  Gospel  ihsti- 
tT;itions.  For  although  it  is  unquestionably  the  duty- 
of  all  men  to  hear  the  Gospel  preached  ;  still,  if  the 
lu^v  of  God  extends  not  its  authority  over  them,  they 
are  bound  no  more  to  hear  it  upon  one  day  of  thip 
week  than  upon  another  ;  nor  are  they  bound  to  abstain 
from  labor  any  day  farther  than  is  necessary  fcfr  tliis 
purpose.  This  is  one  of  the  consequences  which,  it 
appears  to  me,  would  legitimately  result  from  your 
theory  ;  and  carried  to  its  full  extent,  it  Avould  subvert 
all  the  moral  regulations  of  societ^^  It  is  obvious  that 
the  regard  had  to  the  fourth  commandment,  is  wliat 
now  holds  the  world  in  check  ;  as  to  the  desecration 
of  a  day  of  rest  from  labor,  remove  this,  and  nothin£>- 
short  of  civil  law,  and  legal  penalties,  could  restrain 
it  in  its  pursuits  after  Avealth  and  pleasure. 

1  will  here  remark,  that  it  is  unjust  to  excite  preju- 
dice, and  contempt  for  the  day  which  God  has  sancti- 
fied, and  claims  as  his  Sab7)afh  —  calling  it,  "  t/ie  lioly 
of  the  Lord,  "  by  terming  it  the  Jewish  Sabbath,  and 
representing  its  observance  as  Judaism,  and  cen- 
surable among  Christians.  Whatever  may  be  tlie 
motive  of  those  who  do  it  ;  the  practice  is  not  only 
wrong,  l:iut  ag-ainst  the  la^v  of  Christian  kindness.— 
It  represents  the  observance  of  the  Sabbath  as  con- 
temptible, and  is  considered  by  Sabbath-keepers,  in  the 
same  light  that  their  brethren  of  the  first  day  would 
view  the  custom  of  calling  the  day  they  observed  the 
RomisJi  Sabhath.  Undoubtly  they  would  be  sensitive 
to  this  ungenerous  course.  Let  the  day  be  called 
what  the  Scriptures  call  it,  and  it  will  be  suflficiently 
distinguished  from  the  other  days  of  th^  week. 

Respecting  the  question  of  evangelical  correctness, 
you  will  allow,  I  think,  that  the  person   who  believes 


SIS  SABBATH    DISCUSSION- 

thefourtTi  commandment  to  be  in  force,  and  accordingrj^ 
observes  the  Sabbatli,  lias  a  stronger  claim  to  it,  than: 
those  "who  acknowledge  its  authority,  and  yet  disre- 
gard the  day  it  enjoins. 

I  do  not  wish  to  be  unreasonably  confident  in  the 
correctness  of  my  views.  I  may  have  erred  :  if  so,  I 
hav^^e  erred  in  a  matter  of  no  small  consequence  ;  and 
I  shall  hold  that  man  to  be  my  friend,  who  will  cor- 
i*ect  me  with  a  "  Thus  saitTi  the  Loi'd.  "■  If  I  and  my 
brethren  are  as  conscientious  in  regaj-d  to  this  subject 
as  you  consider  us  to  be — we  may  yet  be  conscien- 
tiously ivrong.  I  admit  that  education  and  habit  have  a 
great  influence  in  forming,  and  governing  conscience. 
Still,  as  great  as  is  the  danger  of  our  being  misguided 
thereby,  it  should  be  recollected,  that  this  influence  is 
more  than  counterbalanced  by  the  loss  of  worldly  in- 
terest and  convenience.  It  should  also  be  remem- 
bered, that  our  friends  who  differ  from  us  in  the  ob- 
servance of  the  Sabbath,  are  exposed  to  still  gi'eater 
danger  from  the  combined  influence  of  education^ 
worldly  interest,  convenience  and  respccfahilky. 

I  s  incerely  reciprocate  your  kind  wish,es  for  me. — 
May  it  please  Grod  in  the  riches  af  his  grace  to  cheer 
your  advanced  age  with,  the  constant  assurance  of  that 
rest  Avhich  remains  for  the  people  of  God. 

I  remain  your  frien-d  and  brother  in  Christ, 

W.  B.  MAXSON . 


■LETTER    XXI. 


To  THE  Rev.  Wm.  B.  Maxson. 

Fehruary  26,  and  March  4,  1836. 
Dear  Brotber, — To  account  for  my  long  silence, 
please  to  recollect  that  your  series,  in  rcpiy  to  mine, 
closed  at  about  the  commencement  of  tiie  year,  a  sea- 
son when  pastors  in  this  city  ai'e  expected  to  mak-e 
txnd  receive  more  visits  than  usual,  and  to  perform 
other  extra  services.  I  have  not  treated  your  letters 
with  neglect  :  for,  besides  reading  each  when  it  ap- 
peared, since  the  publication  of  the  last,  I  have  reaci 
them  aPi  carefully  and  thoughtfully  over.  I  candidly 
acknowledge  that  they  are  ably  and  respectfully 
written,  and  am  glad  to  find  that  they  contain  about 
all  the  strength  of  the  Sabbatarian  cause.  But, 
strange  as  it  may  seem  to  you,  \  conscientiously  say 
that,  in  my  opinion,  tl>ey  leave  my  views  of  the  sab- 
batic institution  wholly  unshaken.  Nevertheless,  as 
you  have  succeeded  so  well  in  giving  a  show  of  plau- 
eibility  to  your  own  views  and  in  spreading  a  cloud 
of  words  over  mine,  I  deem  it  incumbent  upon  me  to 
make  a  rejoinder.  In  doing  this,  however,  I  shall 
not  minutely  trace  the  course  of  your  letters,  form- 
ally noticing  every  thing  you  have  advanced  under 
the  appearance  of  an  argument  or  an  objection,  T  many 
of  them  being   refuted  by  my  former  series,)-?  bul 


220 


SJLBBATll    DlSCCrSSrOr^', 


shall  endeavor  to  bring  the  wide-spread  discussiofi  tc> 
a  few  points. 

According  to  your  own  avowal,  (February  27, 
1835, )  the  chief  matter  of  difference  between  us  re- 
spects the  decalogue  ;  and  this  you  have,  at  length, 
brought  to  a  very  narrow  compass.  You  agree  with 
me,  —  1.  That  the  decalogue  is  a  verbal  copy  of  the 
moral  law,  that  is,  of  the  law  of  nature  —  that  it  ex- 
presses the  standard  of  morality  under  which  man 
was  made,  and  that,  by  consequence,  it  was  binding 
on  Adam  and  all  his  posterity  as  such.  2.  That  the 
fourth  commandment  *'  ^s  both  moral  and  positive  — 
moral  as  to  the  appointment  of  a  season  for  the  rest 
and  devotion,  and  positive  as  to  the  appointment  of  the 
seventh  and  last  day  of  the  weel-  for  this  purpose  ;  *' 
October  16,  1835.  3.  That  the  day  of  the  week 
specified  by  the  falling  of  the  manna,  and  recognized 
by  the  fourth  commandment,  was  the  same  day,  in 
weekly  rotation,  that  God  sanctified  from  the  begin- 
ning;'' October  23,  1835,  and  January  1  and  8, 
.1836.  And  4.  That  "the  Jewish  Sabbath  was 
abolished  ; ''  as  you  positively  assert.  November 
1^,  1835. 

By  this  assertion,  taken  in  iia  connection,  nc- 
reader,  it  is  true,  can  understand  you  to  mean  that 
the  duty  of  observing  the  seventh  day  was  abolished. 
But,  recollect,  you  presently  go  on  to  say  of  the  sab- 
batic law  delivered  to  the  Jews,  "  It  embraced  nc- 
new  prohibitions,  and  enjoined  no  new  duties. ' * 
What,  then,  was  abolished  1  Here  you  must  per- 
ceive that,  what  you  (  under  date  last  referred  to  ) 
say  devolves  on  me,  devolves  equally  on  yourself; 
namely,  ."to  show  that  there  is  a  substantial  differ- 
ence between  the  Sabbath  originally  instituted  and 
the  Sabbath  of  the  fourth  commandment.''  For,  if 
there  was  no  such  difference  between  the  two,  ho\Y 


SABBATH    DISCUSSION.  ^21 

could  *' the  Jewish  Sabbath,"  which  certainly  was 
the  Sabbath  of  the  fourth  commandment,  be  abolished 
while  the  original  Sabbath  remained,  as  you  contend 
it  did,  and  does.  To  me  it  is  very  obvious,  that  the 
weekly  day  of  sacred  rest  was  the  same  under  the 
Mosaic  dispensation  that  had  been  sanctified  from  the 
beginning.  But  the  fourth  commandment,  both  as 
delivered  (  Exo.  xx.  )  and  as  recapitulated,  (  Deut.  v.  ) 
contains  prohibitions  and  enjoins  duties  v/hich  could 
never  have  been  known  by  the  record  in  Gen.  ii. 
1  —  3  ;  however  so7ne  of  them  may  be  now  inferred 
from  that  record,  by  the  light  of  the  commandment. 
And  I  firmly  believe  that  some  of  the  prohibitions 
and  injunctions^  contained  in  the  fourth  command- 
ment were  never  understood  as  appertaining  to  the 
Sabbath,  nor  observed  as  such,  until  they  were  made 
known  to  Israel  after  their  exodus  from  Egypt.  For, 
if  these  prohibitions  and  injunctions  had  been  under- 
stood and  observed  by  the  Israelites  before,  what  ne- 
cessity was  there  for  the  special  directions  which,  by 
revelation,  were  given  to  them  respecting  the  manna  ? 
—  to  wit,  that  the  double  quantity  thereof  that  would 
fall  on  the  sixth  day,  must  on  that  day  be  prepared 
for  eating,  that  the  portion  thereof  allotted  for  the 
Sabbath  might  be  in  perfect  readiness.  Exo,  xvi. 
5,  23.  And,  admitting  that  the  specifications  of  duty, 
negative  and  positive,  embraced  in  the  fourth  com- 
mandment, to  remain  in  force,  are  not  many  Sab- 
batarians, at  every  return  of  the  seventh  day,  guilty 
of  Sabbath-breaking  ]  Is  all  their  food  for  the  seventh 
day  cooked  on  the  sixth  ?  and  are  their  servants  and 
horses  entirely  exempt  from  service  on  the  seventh  ? 
Besides,  all  subsequent  injunctions  and  prohibitions 
regarding  the  observance  of  the  Sabbath,  with  all  tlie 
penalties  annexed  to  the  smallest  violations  thereof, 
must  be  understood  as  sustained  bv  the  tenor  of  the 


S22  SABBATH    DISCUSSION. 

fourth  commandment.  Thus  sustained,  therefore, 
was  the  following  :  "  Six  days  shall  work  be  done  ; 
but  on  the  seventh  day  there  shall  be  to  you  an  holy 
day,  a  Sabbath  of  rest  to  the  Lord  :  whosoever  doeth 
work  therein  shall  be  put  to  death. '"  And  further, 
to  show  the  strictness  of  the  mandate,  the  Lawgiver 
adds,  *'  Ye  shall  kindle  no  fire  throughout  your  habi- 
tations upon  the  Sabbath  day. ''  Exo.  xxxv.  2,  3. 
Compare  chap.  xxxi.  15.  So  fearful,  indeed,  was 
the  penalty  annexed  to  the  violation  of  the  Sabbath, 
that  when  an  Israelite  was  found  gathering  sticks 
npon  a  Sabbath  day,  even  Moses  did  not  venture  to 
put  the  law  in  force  against  him  till  he  had  inquired 
of  the  Lord  ;  hoping,  perhaps,  that  so  small  an  of- 
fense might  not  require  the  death  of  the  offender  ; 
or,  if  it  did,  that  he  might  know  the  manner,  which 
had  not  yet  been  revealed.  "  And  the  Lord, ''  to  de- 
cide both  questions,  "  said  unto  Moses,  The  man 
shall  surely  he  put  to  death  ;  all  the  congregation 
shall  stone  him  without  the  camp  ; ''  and  which  was 
accordingly  done.  Numb.  xv.  32  —  36.  Extra  sac- 
rifices, too,  were  required  on  the  Sabbath,  Numb, 
xxviii.  9,  10. 

Did  the  fourth  commandment,  then,  with  the  sub- 
sequent precepts  founded  upon  it  and  explanatory  of 
it,  *'  embrace  no  new  prohibitions,  and  enjoin  no  new 
duties  1 '"'  That  there  is  nothing  required  by  tlie 
fourth  commandment  which  is  inconsistent  with  the 
record  in  Gen.  ii.  2,  3,  I  admit  ;  but  if  the  Creator 
had  required  all  the  sabbatic  duties  by  the  original 
institution  of  the  Sabbath  which  he  afterwards  re- 
quired by  the  fourth  commandment,  and  precepts  ex- 
planatory of  it,  there  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt  that 
he  would  have  expressed  them,  either  in  the  record 
of  the  institution  itself,  or  in  some  additional  explari- 
atioi)  of  that   record.      To  say,  as  some  have  done, 


SABBATH    DISCUSSION. 


223 


that  Adam's  condition  when  he  received  the  sabbatic 
institution,  accounts  for  the  omission  of  duties  speci- 
fied in  the  fourth  commandment,  is  manifestly  futile; 
for,  though  he  then  had  neither  son  nor  daughter, 
man-servant  nor  maid-servant,  the  institution,  as  we 
both  believe,  extended  to  his  posterity,  among  whom 
all  these  co-relations  soon  existed. 

Now,  my  brother,  I  again  ask,  what  do  you  mean 
when  you  say,  "the  Jewish  Sabbath  was  abolished  1  '^ 
If  you  mean  that  only  the  ceremonial  appendages  to 
the  Sabbath  were  abolished,  with  the  other  rites  of 
<he  ceremonial  law,  you  must  suppose  that  the  Gospel 
Church,  like  national  Israel,  is  under  obligation  to 
observe  the  Sabbath  of  the  fourth  commandment  on 
pain  of  corporeal  death,  the  temj)oral  penalty  which, 
by  subsequent  explanation,  was  annexed  to  the 
smallest  violation  of  that  commandment ;  and,  con- 
sequently, that  she  is  bound  to  stone  to  death  any  of 
her  members  for  kindling  a  fre,  or  even  gathering 
sticks  for  such  purpose,  on  the  Sabbath  day.  This, 
as  observed  in  my  Summary^  would  be  strange  disci- 
pline in  a  Gospel  Church.  [Your  objection,  that  the 
same  penalty  was  annexed  to  the  violation  of  certain 
other  of  the  commandments,  as  in  cases  of  blasphe?nyj 
rebellion  against  parents,  &c.,  affords  no  relief  to  the 
Sabbath-breaker;  but  serves  to  show  that,  as  "all 
have  sinned,  '^  so  all,  while  under  the  law  as  a  cove- 
nant of  works,  are  liable  to  its  penalty  :  for  "the 
wages  of  sin  is  death'* — death,  not  only  iemporaly 
but  also  eternal,  as  it  stands  opposed  to  eternal  life  ; 
Rom.  vi.  23  ;  and  that  eternal  death  is  certain  to  all 
who  die  in  unbelief,  was  fearfully  indicated  by  the 
certain  execution  of  temporal  death  on  the  offenders 
noticed.  Hence  your  objection  only  corroborates  my 
position,  to  wit,  that  spiritual  Israelites,  those  who 
jue  born  of  the  Spirit  and  justified  in  Christy  are  nal 


^^4 


SABBATH    DISCUSSION'. 


under  tiie  law,  as  mere  national  Israelites,  with  all 
the  unbelieving  world,  were  under  it,  and  still  are 
under  it ;  that  is,  so  as  to  be  liable  to  its  penalty  ; 
for  it  is  the  privilege  of  believers  to  say,  •'  Christ 
hath  redeemed  us  from  the  curse  of  the  law,  being- 
made  a  curse  for  us. "  Gal.  iii.  13.  Compare  Rom. 
vi.  14.]  And,  if  you  should  say,  <'the  Jewish  Sab- 
bath was  abolished, "  as  to  all  things  relating  to  the 
sabbatic  institution  that  are  positive,  it  must  be  obvi- 
ous, that,  tried  by  your  own  avowed  opinion,  you 
must  concede  that  the  observance  of  the  seventh  day 
was  abolished  ;  for,  speaking  of  the  sabbatic  uistitu- 
lion  as  recognized  by  the  fourth  commandment,  you 
say,  "to  me  it  appears  to  be  both  moral  and  positive 
—  moral  as  to  the  appointment  of  a  season  for  rest 
and  devotion,  and  j)ositive  as  the  appointment  of  the 
seventh  and  last  day  of  the  week  for  this  purpose. "' 
But,  to  avoid  the  dilemma,  you  say,  (substantially,), 
that  "the  Jewish  Sabbath  was  abolished"  as  to  all 
thmgs  annexed  to  the  sabbatic  institution  by  the 
Mosaic  dispensation.  By  this  resort,  j^ou,  indeed, 
divest  the  sabbatic  institution  of  its  penal  sanctions  ; 
but,  to  accomplish  this,  you  necessarily  do  more  than 
you  are  av/are  of — you  virtually  admit  all  that,  on 
this  point,  I  contend  for  ;  namely,  that  noiv,  as  origi- 
nally, the  weekly  day  of  sacred  rest  is  sustained  by 
divine  example  and  authorized  inference,  and  not  by 
express  commandment  ;  for  I  defy  any  man,  however 
aided  by  the  ingenuity  of  Burnside  and  others,  to  find 
an  express  command  lor  the  sabbatic  observance  in 
the  institutive  record  in  Gen  ii.  2,  3.  By  this  record, 
it  is  true,  v/e  certainly  know  thtit  God,  having  finished 
his  works  of  creation  in  six  days,  rested  therefrom  on 
the  seventh,  and  that  he  "  blessed  the  seventh  day,  and 
sanctified  it ;''  thus  teaching,  by  example,  that,  during 
that  day,  man  should  rest  from  all  servile  labor,  and  be 


SABBATH     DISCUSSION.  2*23 

employed  in  contemplating  the  works  and  adoring  the 
perfections  of  his  Creator  :  but  no  express  command 
for  the  sabbatic  observance  was  given  till  under  the 
Mosaic  dispensation  ;  to  wit,  at  the  falling  of  the 
manna,  (Exo.  xvi.  29,)  and  at  the  promulgation  of 
the  law.  Exo.  xx.  8  — 11.  Therefore,  according 
to  your  own  declaration,  that  "the  Jewish  Sabbath 
was  abolished, ''  as  to  all  things  wliich  the  institution 
acquired  under  the  Mosaic  dispensation,  you  must,  to 
be  consistent  v/ith  yourself,  admit  that  the  command. 
for  observing  the  seventh  day  was  only  commensurate 
with  the  Mosaic  dispensation  ;  and  consequently,  that 
while  the  morality  of  the  institution  perpetually  re- 
quires that  one  day  in  each  week  shall  be  constantly 
observed  as  a  day  of  sacred  rest  and  devotion,  the 
■positive  part  of  it,  that  is,  what  day  of  the  week 
should  be  so  observed,  can,  under  the  Christian  dis- 
pensation as  under  the  patriarchal,  be  knov/n  only  by 
divine  example.  By  such  example  t"or  observing  the 
tirst  day  of  the  week,  1  mean  the  example  of  Christ 
and  his  inspired  apostles. — Nevertheless,  I  shall,  in 
a  proper  place,  show  that  Christ,  in  effect,  com- 
manded the  observance  of  his  resurrection-day. 

March  4,  1836. 
When  1  remind  you,  my  brother,  of  your  declara- 
tion that  "  the  Jev.'ish  Sabbath  was  abolished,"  I  do 
not,  observe,  imply  that  you  ( any  more  than  myself) 
would  be  understood  to  say  or  mean  that  the  fourth 
commandment,  as  to  the  morality  which  it  enjoins,  is 
rendered  nugatory  ;  the  whole  scope  of  your  letters 
shows  the  contrary,  as  that  of  mine  also  does,  for  I 
have  expressly  said,  "  the  decalogue  exhibits  a  per- 
fect standard  of  morality  ;  '^  and  a  standard  of  mor-. 
ality  not  providing  for  the  public  acknowledgement 
and  stated  worship  of  God  as  the  Creator,  would  be 


226  sABBAtii    Dlsc(rssidN\ 

essentially  defective.  But  recollect  that,  with  Mr.- 
Burnside,  Dr.  Dwight,  and  many  other  respectable 
writers,  you  have  avowed  the  opinion  that  "  the  sab- 
batic institution  is  both  moral  and  positive  —  moral 
as  to  the  appointment  of  a  season  for  rest  and  devo- 
tion, and  positive  as  to  the  appointment  of  the  seventh 
and  last  day  of  the  week  for  this  purpose."  Herein 
I  concur  ;  and  though  I  have  not  heretofore  had  oc- 
casion to  assert  it,  I  have  not  intentionally  said  any 
thing  contrary  to  it.  The  question  between  us,  then, 
is  not  respecting  the  morality  of  the  entire  decalogue  ; 
this,  we  agree,  is  perpetual  ;  but  simply  whether  the 
weekly  observance  of  the  seventh  day,  implied  in 
Gen.  ii.  2,  3 — -expressed  in  Exo.  xvi.  23,  20,  and 
commanded  in  the  fourth  precept  of  the  decalogue, 
does  or  does  not  remain  obligatory  under  the  Gospel  dis- 
pensation. That  the  divine  appointment  of  the  seventh 
and  last  day  of  the  week  as  a  day  of  sacred  rest  was 
positive^  you  admit,  as  also  that  God,  if  he  chose, 
might  direct  to  the  observance  of  another  day  of  tho 
week,  instead  of  the  seventh,  in  perfect  harmony  with 
the  perpetual  morality  of  the  institution  And  that 
God  verily  purposed  to  give  such  direction,  in  regard 
to  this  day  of  sacred  rest,  when,  '*in  the  fullness  of 
time,''  the  all-important  event  to  be  commemorated 
by  it  should  occur,  may  be  strongly  inferred  from  thc» 
fact  that  he  condescended  to  give  a  reason  why  h« 
originally  appointed  '*  the  seventh  and  last  day  of  th« 
week  for  this  purpose  ;"  it  was  to  preserve  among 
men  the  public  acknowledgment  and  stated  worship 
of  himself,  as  the  Creator  of  all  things — "  God 
blessed  the  seventh  day,  and  sanctified  it  ;  because 
that  in  it  he  had  rested  from  all  his  work,  "  that  is^ 
of  creation.  Gen.  ii.  2.  Herein,  by  example,  ho 
taught  Adam  and  his  posterity  to  suspend  their  or- 
dinary avocations  on  the  seventh  day,  and  to  sanctify 


SABBATH    DISCUSSION. 


227 


it  as  a  day  of  sacred  rest  and  holy  contemplation. — - 
This  reason  for  the  sabbatic  observance  was  common 
to  mankind  ;  all  as  creatures,  bearing  the  same  re* 
lation  to  the  Creator. 

Hence,  when  the  decalogue  was  tlelivered,    as   \i 
was  designed  to  exhibit   a  standard  of  morality  bind- 
ing upon  all  mankind,  and  as  such  standard  could  not 
be  perfect  unless   it  provided   for  the   due  acknowl- 
edgment and  worship   of  God,   as   the   Creator,    tho 
sabbatic  observance,  before  instituted  by  divine  ex- 
ample, was  now,  for  the  same  reason,    made  obliga- 
tory by    divine   com.mandment.      Moreover,    as   then 
there  still  existed  no  greater  reason  for  the  common 
observance  of  the  Sabbath  than  the  acknowledgment 
and  worsiiip  of  God  as  Creator,  the  observance  of  it, 
as  from  the  beginning,  was  restricted  to    tho  seventh 
day  of  the  week,  the    day  on  which  Gv)d  rested,  that 
13,  ceased   from  creative   operations.     Neverthelesa, 
the  decalogue,  as   appears   from   its   preface,  (  Exo* 
XX.  2,  )  was,   as   I  said  in  a  former  letter,  delivered 
only  to  national  Israel  ;  and,  as  then  delivered,  was 
included  in  the  legal  dispensation,  which,  as  a  whoic^ 
descended  with  that  people  from  generation  to  gener- 
ation, as  an  appropriate  inker Uancs.      See  my  ser- 
mon on  Deut.  xxxiii.  4.     This   accounts  for  the  dif- 
ference between  the  Jev/s,  who  had  the  written  law, 
and  the  Gentiles,    who  were  without  it.     Rom.    iL 
12  —  15.     Besides,  when  tho  decTlogjo   was   deliv- 
ered, there  existed  a  reason,  at  least  tor  the  sabbatic 
observance,   which  was  peculiar  to  national  Israel  ; 
to  wit,  their  release  from    Egyptian   bondage.      This 
reason,  indeed,  was  prefixed  to  the  v/hoio  decalogue, 
(  Exo.  XX.  2,  )  because  the  kindness  of  G3d  in  bring- 
ing them  out  of   bondage,    claimed  their  gratitude, 
and  ought  to  have  prompted  them  tho  more  carefully 
to  obey  his  revealed  law,  which,  at  that  time,  and  in 


"?28  SABBATH     DISCUSSION. 

that  manner,  he  dehvered  only  to  them  ;  thereby 
distinguishing  them  from  all  other  people.  Dent. — • 
iv.  33 — 37.  Moreover,  as  God  delivered  his  law  to 
them  in  the  form  of  a  covenant,  they,  by  assenting 
to  it,  came  under  the  bond  of  a  formal  covenant  of 
peculiarity.  See  Exo.  xix.  3  —  8  and  Deut.  xxiv. 
3.  Whether  the  record  of  Israel's  release  from 
Egypt  was  originally  prefixed  to  the  decalogue  with 
any  special  reference  to  the  sabbatic  rest,  1  shall  not 
undertake  to  determine.  We  know,  however,  that 
at  the  recapitulation  of  the  law,  Moses,  omitting  to 
mention  the  original  and  general  reason  for  observ- 
ing the  Sabbath,  urged  its  observance  upon  Israel, 
on  account  of  the  reason  which  was  peculiar  to 
them  ;  namely,  their  release  from  Egypt.  For  hav- 
ing stated  their  duties  towards  their  servants  in  ref- 
erence to  the  sabbatic  rest,  he  adds,  "  Remember 
that  thou  wast  a  servant  in  the  land  of  Egypt,  and 
that  the  Lord  thy  God  brought  thee  out  thence,  ''  &;c. 
Therefore  the  Lord  thy  God  commanded  the  (Exo. 
XX.)  to  keep  the  Sabbath  day.     Deut.  v.  15. 

That  the  Jews  have  constantly  understood  that 
their  release  from  Egypt  gave  a  special  reason  to 
to  them,  for  observing  the  sabbatic  rest,  is  plain 
from  the  current  testimony  of  their  writers.  At  pres- 
ent, however,  I  shall  give  but  one  authority  ;  which 
shall  be  that  of  Moses  the  son  of  Maimon,  commonly 
known  among  Christians  by  the  name  of  MAiMOxmES. 
Of  him  the  Jews  say,  "  From  the  time  of  Moses  the 
prophet,  no  one  approached  so  nearly  to  him  in  wis- 
dom and  sound  learning,  as  Moses,  the  son  of  Mai- 
mon."  Again,  '*  as  an  author,  he  is  deservedly  es- 
teemed one  of  the  best  among  the  Jewish  nation." — 
Now,  this  celebrated  author,  when  speaking  of  the 
sabbatic  institution,  and  as  giving  the  sense  of  his 
nation  on  the  subject,  says,  '*  There  are  two    differ- 


SABBATH    DISCUSSION.  229 

ent  causes  for  this  precept,  from  two  different  effects. 
For  when  Moses  first  explained  to  us  the  cause  of 
this  celebration  in  the  promulgation  of  the  ten  com- 
mandments, he  saith  it  was  because  in  six  days  the 
Lord  made  heaven  and  earth.  But  in  the  repetition  of 
them,  he  saith,  Remember  that  thou  loast  a  servant  in 
EgyiH,  &c.  ;  therefore  the  Lord  thy  God  commanded 

thee   to  keep   the   Sabbath  day He   gave  this 

precept  of  the  Sabbath  unto  W5,  (the  Israelites)  and 
commanded  us  to  observe  it  ;  because  we  were  ser- 
vants in  Egypt.''     More  Nevoch.  p.    11.  chap.  31. 

Seeing,  therefore,  that  God  was  pleased  to  sanc- 
tify the  seventh  day,  originally  by  example,  and  sub- 
sequently by  commandment,  to  be  observed  by  man- 
kind in  common,  as  a  memorial  of  his  own  rest  from 
creation-work,  and  by  Israel  in  pa-rticular,  as  a 
memorial  of  the  rest  which  he  had  given  them  from 
hard  labor  in  Egypt, — seeing,  I  say,  that  God  was 
pleased  to  enjoin  the  weekly  sanctification  of  the  sev- 
enth day,  to  commemorate  these  important  events, 
how  reasonable  is  it  to  believe,  as  I  do,  that  he 
therein  designed  prelusively  to  indicate,  that  when 
his  greater  work  of  purposed  redemption  through  the 
promised  seed  should  be  accomplished,  he  would 
cause  that  an  appropriate  day  should  be  more  grate- 
fully sanctified  in  commemoration  thereof.  And 
what  other  day  of  the  week  could  be  so  appropriate 
to  this  end,  as  the Jirst  ? — the  day  on  which  by  rais- 
ing the  Redeemer  from  the  dead,  God,  as  the  God  of 
Justice,  openly  declared  that  he  had  found  a  satisfac- 
tory rest  in  his  vicarious  obedience  unto  death. — 
Truly,  this  is  the  day  which  the  Lord  hath  made;  as  an 
emblem^of  the  rest,  both  gracious  and  glorious,  which 
he  hath  secured  to  believers  ;  we  will  rejoice  and  he 
glad  in  it.  Ps.  cxvfii.  24. 
o 


230  SABBATH    DISCUSSION. 

The  authority,  too,  for  observing  the  first  day  of 
the  week,  is  essentially  the  same  as  that  by  whic^' 
the  seventh  day  was  observed.  The  example  for 
each  is  supremely  divine  ;  for,  as  the  Elohim  hav- 
ing finished  his  works  of  creation  on  the  sixth  day, 
rested  therefrom  on  the  seventh  ;  so  the  Logos  hav- 
ing, on  the  sixth  day,  finished  his  vicarious  sufferings 
on  ths  cross,  and,  on  the  seventh,  his  predicted  hu- 
miliation in  the  tomb,  was  raised  on  the  jirst  day  of^ 
the  iveek,  in  acknowledgment  that  he  was  discharg- 
ed from  any  further  penal  demand,  and,  as  a  matter 
of  right,  ceased  from  his  oion  2corks,  as  God  did  from 
his.  Heb.  iv.  10.  Moreover,  as  the  Elohim  in  de- 
livering "  the  law  of  works,''  commanded  the  observ- 
ance of  the  seventh  day  ;  so  the  Logos,  in  deliver- 
ing "  the  law  of  faith, ^'  which  in  Rom.  xvi.  26,  is 
called  "  the  commandment  of  the  everlasting  God,  ' 
did,  though  not  verbally,  yet  virtually,  command 
the  observance  of  his  resurrection-day.  If  you  ask 
where  ?  I  answer,  in  his  last  and  great  commission 
for  preaching  the  Gospel.  I  am  well  aware,  that 
the  Gospel,  in  types,  and  promises,  and  predictions, 
vv-as  substantially  preached  during  the  Mosaic  dispen- 
sation ;  Heb.  iii.  5.  iv.  2  ;  yea,  that  "  God  preach- 
ed the  Gospel  before  unto  Ahraham,  and  even  to 
Adam  ;  Gen.  iii.  15.,  xxii.  18,  Gal  iii.  8.  16  ;  and 
consequently,  that  it  was  preached  while  mankind  in 
common,  and  while  the  Jews  in  particular,  were  re- 
quired to  observe  the  seventh-day  Sabbath  ;  yet  it  is 
nevertheless  true,  that  the  Gospel  has  never  been 
preav^lied,  and  never  can  be  preached,  but  as  found- 
ed uptin.  the  vicarious  death  and  resurrection  of 
Chrikv  expressed  or  implied.  For,  as  without  his 
vicarious' Aevd%  there  could  have  been  no  satisfacto- 
vv  atonement  made  to  divine  justice  for  sin,  so,  without 
sai. 
iiSLtiOi. 


SABBATH    DISCUSSION.  231 

his  authorized  resurrection,  there  would  have  been 
no  satisfactory  evidence  given,  that  even  his  vicari- 
ous sacrifice  was  actually  accepted  for  this  purpose. 
See  Rom.iii.  23 — 26,  Acts  xiii.  32 — 39,  I  Cor.  xv. 
3,  4,  12 — 20.  Any  doctrine,  therefore,  that  is  not 
founded  upon  these  all-important  facts,  however  grate- 
ful to  Avians  and  SocinianSf  is  not  "  the  Gospel  of 
of  the  grace  of  God  :"  that  is,  it  is  not  glad  tidings 
to  lost  sinners.  See  Acts  xx.  24 — 48,  Rom.  iv.  25, 
Philip  iii.  8—10,  Titus  ii.  14,  I  Pet.  iii.  18.  Hence, 
when  the  risen  Saviour  delivered  his  mandatory 
commission,  "  Go  ye  and  teach  all  nations,  baptiz- 
ing them, ''  &;c.,  he  must  be  understood  as  therein 
commanding  "  the  eleven''  whom  he  addressed,  and, 
by  the  record  thereof,  as  equally  commanding  all 
whom  he  has  subsequently  called,  or  will  yet  call, 
to  be  evangelical  teachers,  that  they  should  doc- 
trinally  teach  mankind  of  all  nations,  (to  whom 
they  have  access,)  their  lost  condition  as  sinners,  and 
that  there  is  no  salvation  for  any  of  any  nation,  but 
through  faith  in  the  atonement  made  by  his  vicarious 
death,  and  acknowledged  in  his  authorized  resurrec- 
tion ;  also  that  such  of  all  nations  as  should  give  evi- 
dence of  having  cordially  received  himself  and  his 
doctrine,  ought  to  receive  baptism,  according  to  his 
precept  and  example.  So  much  you  will  admit.  By 
the  same  commission,  however,  our  Lord  must  be  un- 
derstood as  commanding  his  ministers  to  teach  the 
observance  of  certain  other  things  appertaining  to  his 
dispensation  ;  as,  for  instance,  that  whether  a  suffi- 
cient number  of  his  baptized  disciples  should  be  loca- 
ted within  convenient  bounds,  they  ought  to  unite  in 
Church  relation  —  statedly  meet  for  public  worship 
—  observe  his  commemorative  supper,  and  be  govern- 
ed by  his  appointed  discipline.  Now,  as  these,  and 
o2 


■232  SABBATH    DISCUSSION-. 

many  other  things  must  be  understood  as  enjoined  by 
the  commission,  though  not  expressed  in  it,  I  feel  no  hes- 
itation in  believing  that  the  observance  of  the  first  day 
of  the  loeek,  was  likewise  hereby  enjoined  :  for  this, 
as  much  as  baptism  or  the  supper,  and  much  more  ex- 
tensively than  either,  serves  to  commemorate  his  res- 
urrection, which  necessarily  implies  his  death.  What 
express  command,  pray,  had  either  Abel  or  Noah. 
for  offering  sacrifices  ?  Yet  *'  the  Lord  had  respect 
unto  Abel  and  to  his  offering  ;  Gen.  iv.  4  ;  and 
when  "  Noah  builded  an  altar  unto  the  Lord,  and 
took  of  every  clean  beast  and  fowl,  and  offered  burnt- 
offerings  on  the  altar,  the  Lord  smelled  a  sweet  sa- 
vor. '^  Gen.  viii.  20,  21.  It  is  true,  they  were  both 
believers  in  the  promised  seed,  and  acted  by  faith  ; 
Heb.  xi,  4,  7.  ;  yet  by  some  means  they  must  have 
been  informed  that  God  authorized  and  required  them 
to  offer  sacrifices,  or  their  offerings  would  have  been 
acts  of  will-worship,  and  therefore  offensive.  See  Is. 
i.  12.  Col.  ii.  23.  It  is  therefore  highly  probable 
that  God  has  said  more  than  is  recorded,  about  the 
sacrifices  of  those  beasts,  the  skins  of  which  he  made 
into  coats  for  Adam  and  his  wife.  Gen.  iii.  21. — 
Nor  is  it  any  less  probable  that  Christ,  either  person- 
ally or  by  his  Spirit,  gave  some  instructions  to  his 
apostles  in  regard  to  the  observance  of  his  resurrection 
day,  which  are  not  recorded.  See  John  xvi.  12,  13. 
If,  repeating  your  taunt,  you  should  say  to  me, 
"  You  would  smile  at  a  pedobaptist  who  should  rea- 
son thus,' — I  frankly  confess  I  should  ;  but  the  cases 
are  not  parallel  :  he,  as  you  very  well  know,  can- 
not produce  apostolic  example  or  sanction  for  his 
practice  ;  but  for  observing  the  ^?*5^  fZf/^  of  the  iveek, 
I  produce  both.  Acts  xx.  7.  I  Cor.  xvi-  2.  Our 
Lord's  resurrection  day,    therefore,   as    well  as    his 


SABBATH     DISCUSSION.  233 

supper,  and  rules  of  discipline,  though  not  mention- 
ed in  the  commission,  may  justly  he  understood  as 
included  in  his  subjoined  injunction  :  "Teaching 
them,"  the  nations,  the  way  of  salvation,  and  the 
disciples  in  particular,  "  to  observe  all  things, ''  doc- 
trinal and  practical,  *'  whatsoever  I  have  commanded 
you:  and  lo,  (while  so  doing,)  I  am  with  you  al- 
way,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world.  Amen.''  — 
Matt,  xxviii.  19,  20. 

At  present,  I  shall  only  add,  that  for  the  observ- 
ance of  the  first  day,  as  before,  for  the  observance 
of  the  seventh,  two  reasons  are  apparent  ;  the  one 
general — the  other  special.  For,  as  mankind  in  com- 
mon were  required  to  rest  from  all  servile  labor  on 
the  seventh  day,  because  on  that  day  God  rested 
from  his  creative  work  ;  so  mankind  in  common, 
to  whom  the  Gospel  comes,  are  required  to  believe 
the  record  which  God  hath  given  of  his  Son,  ( I  John. 
V.  10,  )  and,  in  evidence  thereof,  to  sanctify  the  day 
of  his  resurrection,  because  all  ilations  are  blessed  in 
him,  who,  on  that  day,  ceased  from  his  oivn  works,  as 
God  didfrom  his  ;  and  as  national  Israelites  were 
specially  required  to  rest  on  the  seventh  day,  in  grate- 
ful remembrance  of  the  rest  which  God  had  given 
them  from  bondage  and  hard  labor  in  Egypt  ; 
so  spiritual  Israelites,  more  especially,  are  under  ob- 
ligations to  observe  the  day  of  their  Redeemer's  res- 
urrection, in  more  grateful  remembrance  of  the  bet- 
ter rest  which  he  hath  procured  for  them,  from  the 
weightier  bondage  of  the  legal  covenant,  and  from  the 
meaner  servitude  of  sin  and  Satan  ;  and  into  which 
rest,  moreover,  he  enables  them,  v/hen  laboring  and. 
heavy  laden,  to  enter  by  faith  : — we  which  have  believed 
do  enter  into  rest.  Heb.  iv.  3.  Comp.  Matt.  xi.  28, 
Rom.  iv.  25,  I  Pet.  i.  3— -9. 


2M  SABBATH    DISCUSSIOPT.  < 

1 

Your  arguments    in   favor   of  continuing  the    ob- 
servance   of  the  seventh   day  as  also    your  efforts  to  , 
invalidate  the  reasons  I  have  given  for  the  observance             I 
of  the  first  day,    remain  to    be    considered.     In  the              | 
interim,  please  to  regard  me  as  your  sincere  friend.               j 

i 

WM.  PARKINSON.  i 


LETTER     XXIL 


To  THE  Rev.  Wm.    B.   Maxson. 

March  11,  and  18,  1836. 

Dear  Brother, — Your  arguments  to  prove  that  the 
observance  of  the  seventh  day  Sabbath  should  be 
continued  under  the  Gospel,  now  claim  my  attention. 
I  shall,  however,  notice  only  such  of  thorn,  as  to  su- 
perficial readers,  have  a  face  of  plausibility  ;  and 
which  as  you  pretend  to  sustain  them  by  Scripture, 
may  seem,  even  to  some  conscientious  persons,  to  be 
solid  and  conclusive.  " 

Speaking  of  national  Israel,  (  October  16,  183.5,) 
you  say  they  had  the  lively  oracles  committed  to 
them  ;  to  be  finally  transmitted  to  the  Church.  Acts 
vii.  38.  But  must  not  you,  and  must  not  every  ra- 
tional person,  in  reading  that  chapter,  admit  that 
Stephen,  by  "  the  ecclesia  in  the  wilderness,  "  meant, 
not  the  Gospel  Church,  but  the  congregation  of  Is- 
rael in  the  wilderness  of  Sinai,  where  Moses  received 
the  divine  commandments  from  the  angel  and  deliv- 
ered them  to  the  people  ?  See  Exo.  xix.  and  xx. 
chapters.  This  argument,  therefcre,  stands  for 
nothing. 

Nor  are  you  any  more  successful,  though  more 
plausible,  in  referring  to  Is.  Ivi.,  as  you  do  in  the 
same  letter,  and  in  others   subsequently.       By  *'  the 


236  SABBATH     DISCUSSlO]?r. 

son  of  the  stranger,  "  (  ver.  3,)  and  "  the  sons  of  the 
strangers,  ^'  (  ver.  6,.)  who  had  joined,  or  might  join 
themselves  to  the  Lord,  to  lay  hold  on  his  covenant, 
and  to  be  his  servants,  the  prophet,  as  to  the  dis- 
pensation under  which  he  lived,  manifestly  meant 
Gentiles  proselyted  to  Judaism  ;  and  who,  by  con- 
sequence, were  required  to  observe  the  Jewish  sab- 
baths, loeekly  as  v/ell  as  annual  :  "  One  law  shall 
be  to  him  that  is  home-born,  and  unto  the  stranger 
that  sojourneth  among  you.  "  Exo.  xii.  49.  Comp. 
Levit.  xix.  30,  33,  34  ;  and  Is.  xiv.  1.  And  though 
with  the  best  commentators,  I  believe,  that  in  the 
chapter  under  consideration,  the  Lord,  by  the  prophet, 
speaks  chiefly  of  Gospel  times,  I  can  see  nothing  in 
all  he  says,  that,  taken  in  its  true  meaning,  yields 
any  support  to  your  argument.  In  ver.  7,  where  he 
says,  "  Mine  house  shall  be  called  an  house  of  prayer 
for  all  people, "  I  understand  him  to  speak  both  of 
the  temple  and  of  its  antitype,  the  Gospel  Church. — 
Solomon's  temple,  while  it  stood,  was  accessible ybr 
•prayer,  to  Gentiles,  however  remotely  located,  when, 
moved  by  the  name  and  fame  of  Israel's  God,  they 
came  thither  to  worship  him.  See  I  Kings  viii.  41 
— 43.  And  Christ  asserted  the  same  of  the  second 
temple,  Mark  xi.  17.  Comp.  Jer.  vii.  11.  But  we 
are  assured  that  the  temple  was  a  figure  of  Christ's 
body,  both  natural  and  mystical  :  John  ii.  21,  and 
Eph.  ii.  21  ;  and  that  (under  the  Gospel,  )  his  mys- 
tical body,  the  Church,  is  accessible  to  those  of  all 
nations,  who  become  true  believers  in.  him.  Gal.  iii. 
28  ;  Col.  iii.  11.  The  Gospel  Church,  indeed,  hke 
national  Israel,  is  a  peculiar  people ;  1  Pet.  ii.  9  ; 
and  though,  at  first,  it  consisted  only  of  believing 
Jews  ;  yet,  as  under  the  Mosaic  dispensation,  prose- 
lyted strangers  were  admitted  to  the  privileges  of  the 
Jewish  sanctuary  ;  so,  under  the  Christian   dispensa- 


SABBATH    DISCUSSION.  237 

tion,  converted  Gentiles  are  admitted  to  the  privileg- 
es of  tiie  Gospel  Church  ;  being  "  no  more  strangers 
and  foreigners,  but  fellow-citizens  with  the  saints, 
and  of  the  household  of  God.  "  Eph.  ii.  19.  And, 
while  there  can  be  no  authorized  doubt,  that  the  pos- 
terity of  Adam,  in  all  theii  successive  generations, 
are  born  under  the  unalterable  law  of  moral  obliga- 
tion to  God,  it  must  be  equally  obvious,  that,  as  un- 
der the  Mosaic  dispensation,  none  of  the  Gentiles  but 
those  proselyted  to  a  profession  of  faith  in  Israel's 
God,  were  entitled  to  the  rites,  or  made  subject  to  the 
government  of  God's  Israel  ;  so,  under  the  Chris- 
tian dispensation,  none  but  those  that  profess  faith  in 
the  Lord's  Christ,  and  bring  forth  fruits  meet  for 
repentance,  are  entitled  to  his  ordinances,  or  made 
subject  to  the  discipline  of  his  house  :  "  Do  not  ye 
(  the  members  of  of  a  Gospel  Church)  judge  them 
that  are  within  ?  But  them  that  are  without  God 
judgeth  ;  "  inflicting  on  them  such  temporal  judg- 
ments as  he  sees  fit,  and  (  on  such  of  them  as  die  in 
unbelief,)  executing  the  penalty  of  his  righteous  law. 
I  Cor.  V.  12,  13.  By  the  way,  these  remarks  on  Is. 
Ivi.  serve  to  show,  that  I  do  not  (  as  you  allege  I 
do  )  maintain  that  the  Tprians  in  the  days  of  Nehe- 
7niah,  were  not  under  moral  obligation  to  observe  the 
seventh-day  Sabbath  ;  or  that  the  nations  to  which 
the  Gospel  is  preached,  are  not  under  moral  obliga- 
tion to  observe  "  the  Lord's  day  ;  "  but  merely  that 
as  71010  the  government  of  the  Church  does  not  extend 
to  the  world  ;  so  then  the  government  of  national 
Israel  did  not  extend  to  the  Tyrians  or  to  any  other 
unproselyted  Gentiles  ;  and  therefore,  that  official 
punishment  for  the  breach  of  the  Sabbath,  was  not 
inflicted  on  any  but  the  Jews,  and  those  proselyted 
to  their  religion.  To  return  :  You  will  say.  If 
the  Lord,  in  Is.  Ivi.  speaks  by   the  prophet  of  Gospel 


238  SABBATH    DISCUSSION, 

times,  he  must  prophetically  have  associated  the  ob- 
servance of  the  seventh-day  Sabbath  with  these  times. 
Think  again,  before  you  decide.  In  ver.  4th,  men- 
tion is  made  of  saihaths,  which,  as  in  many  other 
places,  probably  include  the  annual  sabbaths  ;  but 
these,  you  admit,  were  abolished  by  Christ.  And 
though  in  ver.  2d,  and  again  in  ver.  6th,  we  find 
Sabhath,  meaning  doubtless  the  weekly  Sahhath  ; 
yet,  as  '<  the  appointment  of  the  seventh  day  for  this 
purpose  was  'positive,  "  and,  according  to  your  own 
opinion  might  be  changed  without  affecting  the  mor- 
ality of  the  institution,  the  prophecy,  which  does  not 
specify  on  what  day  of  the  week  the  Sabbath  inten- 
ded should  be  sanctified,  may  be  justly  understood  in 
harmony  with  such  change.  Besides,  you  cannot 
but  have  observed  that  the  prophets,  who  often  speak 
of  New  Testament  worship,  always  express  it  in 
Old  Testament  style.  How  otherwise,  in  reference 
to  Gospel  times,  can  we  understand  the  burnt-offer- 
ings and  sacrifices  that,  according  to  ver.  7th,  of  this 
chapter,  were  to  be  accepted  on  God's  altar  1  See 
its  fulfillment  in  Heb.  xiii.  10,  1^.  Read  Dr.  Lowth's 
notes  on  Is.  xix.  19,  and  Ixvi.  23.  The  same  style, 
loo,  occurs  in  the  New  Testament,  especially  when 
Jewish  Christians  are  addressed.  See  Gal.  iv.  26  ; 
Heb.  xii.  22  ;  I  Pet.  ii.  9. 

You  say,  "  The  Scriptures  know  of  no  distinction 
between  moral  and  positive  injunctions  and  prohibi- 
tions. "  Surely  you  do  not  mean,  that  the  Scriptures 
do  not  contain  positive,  as  well  as  moral  injuctions 
and  prohibitions.  Were  not  the  judgements,  begin- 
ning with  Exo.  xxi.,  and  the  ceremonies,  beginning 
with  Levit.  i.,  all  positive  ?  Nay,  was  not  the  first 
verbal  law  which  God  gave  to  man,  a  positive  pro- 
hibition 1  Gen.  ii.  16,  17.  And  were  there  not 
many  positive  injunctions  and  prohibitions,   besides 


SABBATH    DISCUSSION'.  239 

those  adverted  to,  delivered  some  by  the  Father,  and 
others  by  the  Son  ?  Nor  do  I  deny,  that  positive  in- 
junctions were  as  binding  on  the  person  or  persons  com- 
manded, as  were  the  moral  commandments  ;  yet,  as  a 
moral  obligation  is  natural  and  universal,  and  there- 
fore necessarily  antecedent,  I  seriously  doubt,  wheth- 
er God,  though  his  authority  is  independent  and  in- 
finite, ever  gave  a  positive  injunction,  which  rightly 
understood,  was  at  variance  with  his  moral  law,  nat- 
ural or  revealed.  The  most  probable  instance  of 
such  contrariety,  is  in  the  example  you  mention, 
wherein  he  positively  commands  Abraham  to  take 
his  beloved  son  Isaac,  and  offer  him  up  for  a  burnt- 
offering.  But  even  this,  rightly  understood,  was  not 
a  precept  to  violate  his  moral  law,  in  which  he  saith, 
Thou  shall  not  kill,  that  is,  commit  murder.  For, 
though  this  commandment,  as  a  part  of  the  decalogue, 
was  not  revealed  till  long  after  the  days  o^  Ahraham, 
it  had  existed  in  the  law  of  nature  coeval  with  Adam  ; 
and,  to  promote  its  observance,  (  not  to  violate  it,  ) 
God  had  said  to  Noah,  Whoso  sheddeth  man's  hlood, 
hy  man  shall  his  hlood  he  shed  :  for  in  the  image  of 
God  made  he  man.  Gen.  ix.  6.  If,  (  as  under  some 
monarchies,  )  to  destroy  an  image  of  the  sovereign 
has  been  made  a  capital  crime  ;  how  much  more 
should  murder  be  so  held  %  it  being  the  destruction  of 
an  image  of  God.  Accordingly,  after  the  delivery  of 
the  decalogue,  God  provided,  by  statue,  that  the 
violation  of  his  moral  command.  Thou  shalt  not  kilU 
i.  e.  murder,  should  be  punished  by  the  death  of  the 
offender.  Exo.  xxi.  12.  Levit.  xxiv.  17.  Nor  was 
any  satisfaction  short  of  death  to  be  accepted. — - 
Numb.  XXXV.  30,  31.  So,  whenever  God  comman- 
ded, or  prophetically  threatened  the  destruction  of 
men  by  war,  it  was  to  punish  them  for  immorality. 
Hence,  as  the   positive   command  given  to  Abraham 


240  SABBATH    DISCUSSION* 

did  not  require  that  he  should  hate  and  murder  Isaac  ; 
but  that,  dearly  as  he  loved  him,  he  should  sacrifice 
him  in  token  of  his  supreme  love  and  filial  fear  of 
God,  it  must  be  obvious,  that  even  if  he  had  been 
allowed  to  make  the  sacrifice,  his  act  would  not  have 
been  murderous,  and  therefore  not  a  violation  of  the 
moral  command.  Thou  shall  not  kill.  So  neither 
was  the  act  of  the  disciples,  vindicated  by  their  bless- 
ed Master,  a  violation  of  any  divine  command,  moral 
or  positive  ;  but  merely  of  a  traditional  rule.  To 
supply  their  hunger  from  the  standing  corn,  they 
were  authorized  by  the  statute  in  Deut.  xxiii.  25. — 
And  the  rubbing  of  the  ears  in  their  hands,  cavilled 
at  by  the  Pharisees,  was  a  work  of  necessity,  and 
therefore  lawful  on  the  Sabbath  day.  The  fourth 
commandment,  indeed,  makes  provision  for  works  of 
necessity  and  mercy  ;  for  the  words  col  melacha,  in 
Exo.  XX.  10,  means  all  or  every  work  ;  and,  so  trans- 
lated, the 'connection  of  the  commandment  runs  thus  : 
'^  In  it "  ( the  Sabbath  )  "  thou  shall  not  do  all  work,^^ 
(  or  business,  as  on  other  days,  )  which  plainly  im- 
plies that  some  work — such  as  necessity  and  mercy 
required,  might,  consistently  with  the  sense  of  the 
commandment,  be  done  on  the  Sabbath.  And  such 
was  every  work  that  Christ  did,  or  sanctioned  the 
doing  of,  on  the  Sabbath. 

On  Matt.  V.  18,  19,  you  reason,  if  not  unfairly,  at 
least  queerhj.  Christ  was  addressing  his  disciples  ; 
showing  that,  being  such,  it  became  them  to  excel 
others  in  obedience  to  all  God's  revealed  will.  To 
them  he  said,  "  Let  your  light  so  shine  before  men, 
(ver.  16  )  that  they  may  see  your  good  works,  and 
glorify  your  Father  who  is  in  Heaven.  "Think  not 
(ver.  17  )  that  I  am  come  to  destroy  the  law  and  the 
prophets  :''  (  and  so  to  introduce  a  licentious  disre- 
gard to  moral  duty  or  to  prophetic  instruction  ;  )  "  I 


SABBATH    DISCUSSION.  241 

am  not  come  to  destroy  either  *'  the  law  or  the  proph- 
ets, "but  to  fulfilP  both  —  to  exhibit  a  pertect  con- 
formity to  the  moral  law,  and  to  become  the  fulfil- 
ling end  of  the  ceremonial  law  ;  and,  to  do  all  in 
perfect  accordance  to  what  Moses  and  the  other 
prophets  had  written  concerning  him.  See  Acts  xxvi. 
22,  23  ;  and  Rom.  x,  4.  Nor  should  there  be  the 
least  failure  or  imperfection  in  his  work  :  "For," 
adds  he,  (  ver.  18  )  "  verily  I  say  unto  you,  till 
heaven  and  earth  pass,  one  jot  or  one  tittle  shall  in 
no  wise  pass  from  the  law,  till  all  be  fulfilled  ;''  that 
is,  in  his  own  obedience  and  sacrifice  ;  for  to  such 
perfection,  the  law  has  never  been  fulfilled  by  any 
of  his  disciples  upon  earth.  Nevertheless,  by  his 
own  perfect  observance  of  the  law,  moral  and  cere- 
monial, he  taught  his  disciples,  whom  he  had  comman- 
ded to  let  their  light  shinebefore  men,  that  they  should 
constantly  imitate  him  in  moral  obedience,  also  that 
while  the  ceremonial  law  remained  in  force,  they 
should  regard  it  as  the  law  of  God,  and  carefully 
observe  its  precepts.  Hence,  still  addressing  them, 
he  said,  "  Whosoever  therefore  (  ver.  19  )  shall 
break  one  of  the  least  of  these  commandments,  and 
teach  men  so,  (  as  if  it  were  by  his  order,  )  he  shall 
be  called  least  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven  :'^  that  is, 
among  his  disciples  then  composing  his  visible  king- 
dom, which,  in  chapter  xxviii.  17,  he  calls  the  Church: 
— nay,  such  conduct  in  a  disciple,  as  it  should  be 
placed  on  record,  would  appear  to  his  discredit,  when, 
after  the  Master's  ascension,  his  kingdom  should 
come  loith  poioer  :  "  but  whosoever  "  (among  his 
disciples  )  "  shall  do  and  teach  them,  the  same  shall 
be  called  great  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven  ; ''  both  as 
it  then  was,  and  as  it  should  become  after  his  ascen- 
sion. That  such  was  our  Lord's  meaning,  is  evi- 
dent from   the  comparison  he    goes   on    to  make  be- 


242  SABBATH      DISCUSSION. 

tween  his  true  disciples  and  the  Jewish  legalists  t 
*'  For,  ''  adds  he,  (ver.  20,)  "  I  say  unto  you,  that 
except  your  righteousness  shall  exceed  the  righteous- 
nes  of  the  of  the  scribes  and  Pharisees  '^  —  which  is 
the  same  as  If  he  had  said,  except  ye  shall  be  found 
true  believers  in  me,  and  walking  in  a  manner  evi- 
dential of  it  ;  (  which  could  not  be  said  of  the  scribes 
and  Pharisees  ;  )  "ye  shall  in  no  case  enter  into  the 
kingdom  of  heaven,  "''  as  this  kingdom  would  be  set  up 
on  the  day  of  pentecost,  and  much  less  as  it  is  in  glory. 
Of  the  latter  he  says,  "  Not  every  one  that  saith  unto 
me.  Lord,  Lord,  shall  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  hea- 
ven ;  but  he  that  doeth  the  will  of  my  Father  who  is 
in  heaven."  Matt.  vii.  21.  From  the  words  on 
which  I  have  thus  commented,  it  must  be  obvious  : — 
1.  That  unless  Christ  fulfilled  the  law,  as  noticed  in 
ver.  18,  neither  you  nor  I,  nor  any  of  the  human 
race,  can  enter  into  heaven.  2.  That  so  far  as  the 
Sabbath  might  be  implied  in  the  words,  the  obser- 
vance of  the  seventh  day,  as  admitted  on  both 
sides,  was  then  binding,  and  remained  so,  till  the 
resurrection  of  Christ  ;  and  3.  That  although  the 
morality  o'i  the  institution,  with  that  of  all  the  deca- 
logue, necessarily  remains  undiminished  ;  we  know, 
by  the  example  of  the  apostles,  and  of  the  Churches 
in  their  times,  that  they  understood  Christ,  who  is 
"  Lord  also  of  the  Sabbath  day,''  to  have  transfer- 
red the  'positive  part,  the  time  of  the  sacred  rest,  to 
the  day  of  his  resurrection  ;  namely,  the  first  clay  of 
the  iveek.     Acts  xx.  7  ;  I  Cor.  xvi.  2. 

March  18,   1836. 

In  regard  to  Col.  ii.  16,  you  do  me  injustice  ;  for    I 

have  not,    like    many,    included   the  supplied    word 

days  ;  but  explained   the  plural   term  sabbaton,   sah- 

haths,  as  denoting  all  days    and   times,   which    under 


SABBATH    DISCUSSION.  243 

that  name  appertained  to  tlie  Jewish  dispensation. — • 
In  your  letter  of  October  23,  1835,  you  say,  "  It  is 
generally  admitted  that  when  sahhaths,  in  the  plural, 
occurs  in  the  original  of  the  New  Testament,  it  usual- 
ly refers  to  the  annual  and  monthly  observances  of 
the  Jews,  and  not  to  the  weekly  Sabbath.  "  But 
whosoever  makes  this  admission  if  learned,  must  be 
either  unobservant  or  uncandid.  It  is  true  indeed, 
that,  according  to  Trommius,  both  sabbaton,  (  gen.  pi.) 
and  sabbata,  ( nom.  pi.  )  are  often'  used  in  the  Sept.^ 
and,  according  to  Stephens,  sometimes  in  the  N.  T., 
instead  of  sabbaton,  nom.  sing.  But  sabbasi,  dat.  pi. 
occurs  fi-equently  in  the  N.  T.  to  denote  a  plurality  of 
seventh-day  Sabbaths  in  weekly  succession.  See 
Matt.  xii.  5,  10,  12.  Mark  iii.  4.  Luke  iv.  31;  vi. 
2,  9.  Nor  can  it  be  doubted,  that  in  Exo.  xxxi.  13, 
the  Hebrew  word  shabbethoth,  sabbaths,  [  in  the  Sept. 
sabbata  ]  is  used  to  denote  Sabbaths  in  general,  inclu- 
ding the  *ei;e?i;(/i  day,  or  rather,  (judging  from  the 
context, )  to  denote  seventh  days  only,  in  their  weekly 
succession.  Compare  sabbata  tria,  '  three  sabbath 
days. '     Acts  xvii.  2. 

Now  as  to  the  passage  in  dispute,  (Col.,  ii.  16. )  you 
cannot  make  sabbaton,  sabbaths,  to  mean  the  monthly 
"  observances  ; "  for  any  one  of  these  comes  under 
the  denomination  of  e  nomnenias  "  the  nevv^  moon  ; " 
nor  can  you  construe  them  to  mean  the  convocatlonal 
sabbaths,  which  appertained  to  three  annual  festivals, 
for  any  one  of  these,  in  its  season,  is  noted  by  heortes, 
"  an  holy  day ;"  that  is  a  feast  or  festiA^al  day  ;  heortes 
signifying  a  feast.  See  John  vii.  2,  8.  Comp.  Levit. 
xxiii.  39.  If  the  apostles,  therefore,  by  sabbaton 
sabbaths,  did  not  (  as  I  explained  in  the  word  in  the 
former  letter  )  mean  all  days  and  times,  \vhich,  under 
the  Mosaic  economy,  were  denominated  sabbaths,  he 
must  (to  the   more    direct  defeat   of  your  pretense) 


244  SABBATH    DISCUSSION. 

have  meant  tlie  seventh  day  Sabbaths  only,  in  their 
weekly  returns  ;  so  the  same  word  in  the  dat.  case, 
was  used  by  Christ  himself,  and  is  properly  translated, 
"  sabbath  days, "  Matt.  xii.  5,  10,12.  Mark  iii.  4. 
Luke  iv.  31  ;   vi.  2,  9, 

Do,  my  brother,  learn  to  write  more  modestly,  and 
not  as  if  you  supposed  the  knowledge  of  the  sacred 
Originals  to  be  confined  to  Sabbatarians  :  and  be  no 
longer  imposed  upon  by  the  fond  notion,  that  when 
sabbaton  ,  sabbaths,  occurs  in  the  N.  T.  *'  it  usually 
means  the  monthly  and  annual  observances  of  the 
Jews. " 

To  prove  the  perpetuity  of  the  seventh  day  obser- 
vances;  you  make  a  use  of  Ma,rk  ii.  28,  which  I  regret 
to  find  from  the  pen  of  a  Christian  brother.  Of  Christ 
vou  say,  "He  was  not  the  Lord  of  a  shadow^  ;  a  weak 
and  beggarly  element,  (  by  which,  of  course,  you  mean 
the  ceremonial  law  ;  )  but  of  a  solid  good,  which  the 
Sabbath  has  always  been  to  the  people  of  God."  The 
nco-ative  part  of  the  assertion  is  not  true  ;  for  the  cere- 
monial law,  with  the  positive  part  of  the  sabbatic  insti- 
tution, 'Lvas  indeed  that  very  shadow  of  which  Christ 
was  the  body,  or  substance  ;  Col.  ii.  17  ;  and  therefore 
he  teas  "  Lord  of  a  shadow,"  having  power  to  abol- 
ish it,  as  he  did,  by  becoming  the  fulfilling  end  of  it. 
II  Cor.  iii.  13.  Col.  ii.  14,  15.  And  the  j^ositive 
part  of  the  assertion  however  boastfully  made,  amounts 
to  nothing  more  than  every  Christian  thankfully  ac- 
knowledges. Truly  our  blessed  Jesus  is  "  Lord  of  a 
solid  good  " — a  rich  variety  of  good;  a  good  inclu- 
ding all  the  good,  things  of  grace  and  glory,  which, 
thouoh  adumbrated  by  antecedent  ceremonies,  are  re- 
ahzed  only  by  faith  In  him.  Heb.  x.  1,  12,  14,  19,  20, 
&c.  Comp.'^  Rom.  iv.  25,  and  v.  1,  2.  Nor  does  any 
Christian  deny  that  the  sabbatic  rest,  both  literal  and 
mystical,  is  among  the  good  things    that    come   to   the 


«ABBATH    DISCUSSION.  245 

people  of  God  tlirough  Christ,  wlio  is  "Lord  of  the 
Sabbatli,"  or  "of  the  Sabbath  day,"  as  the  same  word 
is  rendered  in  Matt.  xii.  8.  Well,  therefore  might  he 
disregard  all  traditional  additions  made  to  the  sab- 
batic law,  though  plead  by  the  Pharisees  against  his 
disciples  :  and  most  justly  did  he,  who  perfectly  un- 
derstood the  difference  between  the  moral  mid  the  pos- 
itive parts  of  the  sabbatic  institution  retain  the  former, 
while  pursuant  to  purpose,  he  transferred  the  latter  to 
•the  more  memorable  day  of  his  resurrection ;  on  Avhich 
he  "  ceased  from  his  ow'n  works,  "  (  of  vicarious  re- 
demption,) "  as  God  did  from  his,"  of  original  creation. 
Heb.  iv.  10. 

That  Christ,  as  he  predicted,  Matt.  xxiv.  20,  knew 
that  the  unbelieving  Je"ws  would  continue  to  observe 
the  seventh  day  Sabbath,  for  40  years  then  to  come  ; 
nay,  till  the  event  of  their  calling  in  the  latter  times,  no 
one  can  doubt,  who  believe  his  divinity.  But  the 
needful  direction,  which  he  then  gave  to  his  disciples, 
to  pray  that  they  might  not  be  exposed  to  Jewish  bar- 
barity, gives  no  intimation  that  the  same  day  ^vould  be 
or  ought  to  be  observed  by  any  Christian  Church. — 
HoAvever,  as  yo  have  again  produced  that  prediction 
to  sustain  your  practice,  I  again  refer  you  and  all  your 
readers,  to  my  letter  of  January  30,  1835.  At  the 
close  of  the  same  letter,  too,  may  be  seen  that  the 
apostles,  after  their  Master's  ascension,  attended  the 
Jewish  synagogues  on  Sabbath  days,  not  because 
they  felt  bound  to  observe  those  days,  but  to  preach 
the  Gospel  to  the  Jews  there  assembled,  and  to  prove 
to  them  that  Jesus,  whom  their  nation  had  rejected, 
Avas  indeed  the  Christ.  More  of  this  may  be  expected 
in  a  future  letter. 

Your  only  remaining  argument,  that  I  think  de- 
serves notice,  as  designed  to  prove  the  purpetuity  of 
P 


246  SABBATH    DISCUSSION". 

tlic  sc^-enth  day  observance,  is  that  %A-lncli  you  rais<3 
from  Psalms  cxi.  7,  8,  ^vhere  the  Psahnist,  speaking 
of" God,  says,  (  according-  to  our  version)  "  All  his 
commandments  are  sure  ;  they  stand  fast  for  ever  and 
ever."  Put  when  you  recollect  the  great  variety  of 
meaning  in  whicli  the  word  command,  singular  and 
plural,  verbally  and  substantively,  occurs  in  Scripture, 
and  especially  in  the  PsalmS;,  can  you  be  quite  certain, 
that  the  Psalmist  by  "  all  God's  commandments," 
meant  all  his  commandments  in  the  decalogue  ? — 
Might  not  a  Jew  as  w^ell  say,  "  All  God's  command- 
ments" include  his  judicial  and  ceremonial,  as  well  as 
his  moral  commandments,  and  insist  that  it  is  the  duty 
of  his  nation,  at  least,  to  observe  them  all  to  the  end  of 
tlie  world.  Indeed  the  word  here  rendered  com- 
Tdandments  will  not  bear  your  interpretation.  It  is 
used  to  denote  statutes  ;  Psalms  xix.  8  ;  and  as  mean- 
ing these,  it  is  rendered  precepts  ;  Psalms  cxix.  128  ; 
nay,  in  the  same  sense  it  is  twice  rendered  command- 
ments ;  to  wit,  in  Psalms  ciii.  18,  and  in  the  passage 
before  us  ;  but  I  can  find  no  place  in  which  it  is  used 
to  denote  the  decalogue,  the  law  written  on  two  tables 
of  stone.  Tliis  Moses  constantly  denominated  ha  de- 
vareem,  tlie  words,  from  davar,  to  spcah.  In  the  pre- 
face to  its  original  promulgation,  he  emji^hatically  styles 
i-.  col  hB,-d.G\QA-ecTn.\i^-e\\e\\,  all  these  words.  Exo,  xx-. 
1.  And,  when  re-inscribed  ujDon  the  second  two  ta- 
bles, the  Lord  himself,  to  signify  its  sameness  with 
the  record  of  the  first  tables,  gave  it  the  same  denom- 
inations, the  words,  and  these  U'ords.  Exo.  xxxiv.  1,  27. 
Moreover,  Moses,  speaking  of  what  the  Lord  then  did, 
says,  "  He  wrote  upon  the  tables  the  words  of  the 
covenant,  "  adding  by  way  of  explana.tion,  essereth  ha- 
devareem,  the  ten  words.  Exo.  xxxiv.  28.  Deut.  iv. 
13  ;  X.  4.     In  the  Sept.  it  is  deca  logons,  of  which  Jec- 


SABT5ATH     DISCUSSION.  247 

<i}ague  is  compounded.  But  the  Psalmist,  in  the 
place  under  examination  uses  a  word  which  is  from 
pakad,  to  visit,  whether  in  wrath  or  in  fai'or  ;  see 
Jeremiah  vi.  15.  Lam.  iv,  22.  Exo.  xxiv.  7.  Ps. 
xvii.  3  ;  Ixv.  3.  Wherefore  by  col  pikkudaiv  ( liter- 
ally, all  his  visitatio7is,  )  the  Psalmist  most  probably 
meant,  all  the  visible  emanations  of  G-od's  power 
and  influence.  Thus  the  Lord  pakad,  visited  Sarah. — 
Oen.  xxi.  1.  With  this  agrees  the  context.  At  the 
beginning  of  verse  7,  the  Psalmist  says  of  God,  **  The 
W'orks  of  his  hand  are  verity  and  judgment,"  by  which 
may  be  meant  his  operations  in  a  way  of  grace,  which 
^re  all  in  verity,  according  to  his  word  of  truth,  and  in 
judgment,  i.  e.  with  discrimination  and  wisdom  ;  and 
which,'being  wrought  by  his  hand,  he  sustains  for  ever. 
Acts  xi.  21.  Eph.  ii.  10.  I  Pet.  i.  3 — 9.  Grace 
is  a  seed  that  remaineth.  I  John  iii,  9.  Besides, 
as  from  the  4th  to  the  6th  verse,  the  Psalmist  speaks  of 
God's  works  of  creation  and  providence,  these  bid 
fair  to  be  intended  :  they  are  all  wrought  in  verity, 
in  reality,  and  not  in  vision  ;  and  in  judgment,  with 
infinite  understanding  ;  and  as  they  are  all  the  effects 
of  his  almighty  fiat,  they  may  well  be  expressed,  as 
in  our  version,  by  all  his  commandments,  being  pro- 
duced by  the  ^vord  of  his  power.  "  He  spake  and  it 
was  done  ;  he  commanded  and  it  stood  fast.  The 
counsel  of  the  Lord  standeth  forever,  the  thoughts  of 
his  heart  to  all  generations.  "  Ps.  xxxiii.  9,  11, — 
Nevertheless,  the  words  are  also  true  of  all  God's 
<20jnma)idmcnts  in  the  decalogue  ;  they  stand  as  a  per- 
fect rule  of  everlasting  rectitude  ;  yet  believing  as  \ve 
both  do,  that  the  sabbatic  institution,  though  moral,  as 
to  the  appointment  of  a  time  for  sacred  rest  and  devo- 
tion, was  positive,  as  to  the  appointment  of  the  seventh 
day  for  this  purpose,  I  cannot  see  that  the  transfer 
p2 


248  SABBATH    DISCUSSION^ 

of  the  time  to  thejirst  day,  the  day  of  our  Lord's  res- 
urrection, at  all  disturbs  or  diminishes  the  morality  of 
the  institution. 

I  am  still  your  faithful  friend, 

WM.  PARKINSON. 


LETTER  XXIII. 


To  THE  Rev.   W31.  B.  Maxson. 

Aj^r'd  8,  and  15,   1836. 

Dear  Brother, — It  now  becomes  my  business  to  ex- 
s-mine  your  efforts  to  evade,  obscure,  and  invalidate 
the  i-easons  1  have  ^ven  for  the  Christian  observance 
of  the  first  day  of  the  week,  as  the  appropriate  day  of 
sacred  rest  and  devotion,  under  the  Gospel  dispen- 
sation. 

In  your  letter  of  November  13,  1835,  you  noticed 
that  I  had  said,  "  The  observance  of  the  seventh  day 
can,  with  no  possible  propriety  commemorate  the  work 
of  redemption,  though  it  might  still  serve  as  a  memoiial 
of  creation."  I  assert  the  same  now  ;  not  being  moved, 
dn  the  least,  by  any  thing  you  have  said  to  the  contra- 
ry. To  observe  the  seventh  day,  indeed,  is,  in  effect, 
to  commemorate  Christ  as  lying  dead  in  the  grave, 
which  would  be  death  to  our  hopes.  I  Cor.  xv.  17. — 
But  we  gladly  remember,  that  the  angel,  standing  by 
the  vacated  tomb  of  Christ,  said  to  the  \vomen,  *'  He 
is  not  here  ;  for  he  is  risen  as  he  said.  "  Matt,  xxviii. 
6.  You  further  say,  "  It  is  not  the  day  itself,  but  the 
duties  to  which  it  is  devoted,  that  awaken  recollections 
to  divine  subjects  in  the  Christian's  mind.  "  Truly,  it 
is  not  the  day  itself  xhdX  answers  this  end  ;  or  such  rec- 
ollections would  be  common  to  all^  at  every  return   of 


2'5'0'  SABBATH  DrscussioN; 

the  day.  Tlie  day  itself,  however,  by  its  weekly  r-e- 
Gurrence,  always  gives  occasion  for  the  observance  oF 
such  means,  at  least  in  private,  as  serve  to  awaken  de- 
vout recollections  ;  nay  judging  both  from  experience- 
and  observation,  I  am  j^ursuaded  that,  to  those  who- 
have  a  lively  faith  in  the  risen  Saviour,  the  veiy  re- 
rarn  of  his  resurrection-day  is  happily  calculated  to 
revive  the  joyful  thought,  that  He  who  icas  delivered 
for  our  offences,  urns  raised  again  for  our  justification. 
You  also  say,  "  The  Christian  Church,  (  meaning  that 
of  the  Sabbatarians,  )  worshipping  on  the  Sabbath  do, 
for  ought  their  opponents  can  say  to  the  contrary,  en- 
joy as  much  of  the  divine  presence,  and  take  as  much 
pleasure  in  Gospel  instructions,  when  thus  engaged  as 
those  who  observe  the  succeeding  day."  Of  this  nei- 
ther party  can  certainly  judge  ;  for  members  of  one 
party  cannot  certainly  know  what  those  of  the  other 
enjoy.  But  admitting  that  observers  of  the  seventli 
day  enjoy  as  much  of  the  divine  presence  as  do  obser- 
vers of  the  first  day,  it  only  proves,  that  God  is  gra- 
ciously j^leased  to  give  effect  to  his  own  word,  whenev- 
er it  is  preached  ,  and  to  his  owm  ordinances,  when- 
ever observed.  Have  not  preachers  felt  as  much  lib- 
erty and  comfort  in  preaching,  and  believers  m  hearings 
on  other  days,  as  on  the  seventh  day  or  the  first  ?  Nor 
do  I  doubt  that  pedobaptist  Christians  enjoy  as  much 
consolation,  through  faith  and  hope  in  Christ,  under 
Gospel  sermons,  as  bajotist  Christians  do  -,  but  would 
you  hence  argue,  as  some  of  them  do,  that  they  must 
have  obeyed  the  precept  any  followed  the  example  of 
Christ,  in  hajJtisrn  1 

The  principle  reasons  T  have  assigned  for  observing 
the  first  day  of  the  week,  are  the  events  by  which  God 
hath  been  pleased  to  distinguished  this  day.  And, 
adverting  to  the  first  week  of  time,  it  is  manifest,— 

1.     That  \h'ti  first  day  of  the  week  was  emphatical'- 


SABBATH    DISCUSSION.  231 

ly  the  creation  day  ;  it  being  the  day  in  whicli  "  God 
rreated  (  bara )  the  heavens  and  the  earth,  "  that  is,  the 
the  substance  of  them,  out  of  nothing.  This  you  ad- 
mit; and  having  admitted  this,  all  your  subsequent 
caviUingis  of  no  avail.  You  say,  indeed,  as  I  had  said 
before,  that  the  divine  operation,  on  the  first  day,  produ- 
ced only  the  chaotic  mass  ;  but  not  any  thing,  recol- 
lect, was  afterward  produced  out  of  notJiing  ;  and 
therefore  not,  strictly  speaking,  created ;  all  that  ibl- 
foUowed  was  formation  out  of  materials  created  on 
the  first  day,  said  is  expressed  by  another  A^^ord  —  the 
word  asah,  made,  fitted,  finisktd.  See  Gen.  ii.  3  ;  v. 
1.  The  first  day,  therefore  on  the  ^r^^^  week  of  time 
was  emphatically  the  creation-day.  But  because  I 
hence  argue  that  the  observance  of  the  first  of  the 
"W'eek  serves,  (  as  for  other  j^urposes, )  fitly  to  com- 
memorate creation,  you  say  I  impeach  the  wisdom  of 
God,  for  not  having  appointed  this  day  from  the  be- 
ginning for  this  purj^ose  ;  "  because  ^'  say  you,  "  it 
^vas  as  appropriate  then  as  7ioic>.  Just  as  well,  and 
for  a  much  stronger  reason,  might  a  Jew  say  that  the 
^vhole  Christian  community  "You  impeach  the  wis- 
dom of  God,  in  saying  that  He  indeed,  instituted  Ju- 
daism, \vith  all  its  solemnities  ;  and  yet,  that,  being 
disappointed  in  its  effects,  He  sent  his  Son  to  abolish  it.'' 
— Or,  when  we  say,  "  All  the  ceremonies  of  the  le- 
gal dispensation  were  only  to  prefigure  Christ,  and 
therefore,  that  they  answered  the  ends  of  their  insti- 
tution; " —  might  not  the  Jew  again  say,  "This  im- 
plies a  still  greater  impeachment  of  God's  wisdom  ; 
for  if  indeed  He  intended  to  ma.ifest  his  Son  in  human 
nature,  and  to  accept  his  sacrifice  as  an  atonement  for 
the  sins  of  men,  why  did  He  defer  it  so  long  —  ^vhy 
did  he  keep  mankind  in  abe^^ance  by  promises  and 
shadows  four  thousand  years  1  —  if  the  incarnation 
and  death  cjf  his  Son  was  ever    necessary,   it  was    so 


262  SABBATH    DISCUSSION. 

froin  the  beginning.  "  We,  it  is  true  should  agree  m 
telling  the  Jew,  that  we  see  much  of  the  wisdom  of 
God  in  his  having  adopted  this  method  ;  it  serves  to 
show  the  eternity  of  his  purpose  to  save  sinners  thiough 
the  Media  tar,  and  enables  all  who  read  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, (if  not  wilfully  blind,)  to  see  that  Christ  came 
according  to  promises,  predictions,  and  types,  never 
fulfilled  or  realized  in  any  other  ;  that,  withal,  he 
was  virtuoJly  "  the  Lamb  slain  from  the  foundation  of 
the  world  ;"  and  that  all  who  believed  in  him  from  the 
beginning,  were  sa,ved  by  him,  Heb.  vii.  12  ;  xi.  18  ; 
Rev.  xiii.  8.  So  I  behold  a  great  display  of  the  wis- 
dom of  God,  in  his  having  appointed  the  seventh  day 
of  the  week  to  be  sabbatically  observed  ;  it  was  not 
merely  to  commemorate  his  works  of  creation,  but 
also  his  rest  thercfi'om  :  "  God  blessed  the  seventh 
day,  and  sanctified  it ;  because  that  in  it  he  had  rested 
from  all  his  work."  Gen.  ii.  3.  The  seventh  day 
rest,  however,  was  designed  not  only  to  commemorate 
what  \vas  past,  but  also  typically  to  symbolize  what 
was  then  future  ;  namely,  that  rest  which  God,  as  a 
God  of  justice,  constantly  required,  and  which,  "  in  the 
fulness  of  time,"  he  actually  found  in  the  vicarious  death 
of  Christ,  Avho,  agreeably  to  covenant  engagement, 
made  himself,  for  all  he  represented,  "  an  oftering  and- 
a  sacrifice  to  God,  for  a  sweet-smelling  savor."  Eph. 
V.  2.  Thus  Christ,  by  fulfilling  the  Father's  law, 
which  was  in  7iis  heart,  (  Ps.  xi.  8,)  became  the  anti- 
type of  the  ark,  in  which  both  tables  of  the  law  were 
kept  inviolate  ;  Exo.  xl.  20.  Dcut.  x.  5  ;  and  his 
atonement  which  was  satisfactory  to  divine  justice,, 
became  the  antitype  of  the  mercy  seat  which,  covering 
the  law  in  the  ark,  w^as  God's  resting  place.  I  Chron. 
vi.  41.  Comp.  Rom.  iii.  25,  26.  Accordingly  when 
the  Jews,  in  the  latter  day,  the  ten  tribes  as  well  as 
the  two,  shall  be  gathered  fi'om  t;heir  present   disper- 


SABBATH     DISCUSSION.  253 

sloiis  into  their  o\vn  land,  and  be  converted  to  the  faith 
of  the  Gospel,  they  will  no  longer  regard  the  arh^ 
having  embraced  its  Antitype,  and  being  under 
evangelical  'pastors.  They  will  ilic7i^  as  believing 
Gentiles  do  now,  behold  God  by  faith,  as  the  God  of 
grace,  enthroned  in  Christ  his  chosen  rest,  and  ack- 
nowledge and  worship  him  as  such,  in  the  ne^v  Jeru- 
salem, \he  Gco&'^el  ChuvcAi.  See  Jer.  iii.  16 — -19. — 
It  is  absurd  to  refer  this  prophecy,  as  many  do,  to  the 
return  of  the  Jews  from  Babylon.  Were  all  nations 
then  gathered  to  Jerusalem  ?  Have  the  Jews  never 
since  walked  after  the  Imagination  of  their  evil  heart  "l 
ver.  17.  Did  the  house  of  Judah,  the  two  tribes, 
then  walk  with  the  house  of  Israel,  the  ten  tribes  %  ver. 
18.  There  is  only  an  allusion  to  their  return  from 
Babylon  ,  as  in  Hosea  ii.  15,  to  their  exodus  from 
Egy23t.  Comp.  Ezek.  xxxvii  19- — 28.  Observe, 
hovv^ever,  that  the  true  resting  place  for  divine  justice, 
was  not  found  in  any  provisions  of  the  legal  dispensa- 
tion ;  "  for  the  lav/ made  nothing  perfect ;  "  Heb.  vii. 
19  ;  and  therefore,  that  the  symbol  of  the  rest  deman- 
ded, was  continued  in  the  observance  of  the  seventh- 
day  Sabbath,  till  it  was  realized  in  Christ.  But  when 
Christ,  as  noticed  in  my  former  series,  had,  on  the  sixth 
day,  finished  his  covenanted  sufferings  on  the  cross, 
and,  on  the  seventh  his  predicted  humiliation  in  the 
tomb,  the  Father,  as  the  Lawgiver  and  the  God  of 
Justice,  in  acknowledgment  that  m  Z??m  he  had  found 
a  satisfactory  /est,  raised  him  on  the  frst  day  of  the 
w^eek,  and  released  him  as  the  Surety  of  his  people, 
Rom.  iv.     25.     Hence,  — 

2.  As  a  very  important  reason  for  observing  the  frst 
day  of  the  week,  I  contend  that  it  was  validlf/  the  re- 
demption-day. According  to  prophecy,Christ's  resurrec- 
tion was  his  own  redemption.  Ps.  xlix.  9,  15.  Actis  ii. 
31 ;  xiii.  35 — 37.    But  till  Christ  himself  vras  redeemecl, 


254  SABBATH    DISCUSSION. 

that  is,  released  from  any  further  demands  of  law  or 
justice,  surely  none  whom  he  represented  could  be 
released  or  justified  on  his  account.  His  official  re- 
lease, indeed,  shows  that  he  had  previously  completed 
the  full  extent  of  his  stipulated  sufferings  and  humila- 
tion,  and  therefore,  that  he  had  "  made  reconciliation 
for  iniquity,  and  brought  in  everlasting  righteous- 
ness ;"  yet  the  acknowledgment  of  it,  and  therefore 
its  validity^  was  in  his  discharge,  at  his  resurrection  ; 
"If  Christ  be  not  raised, '^  said  Paul  to  believers, 
"  your  faith  is  vain  ;  ye  are  yet  in  your  sins.  -^ — 
I  Cor.  XV.  17.  "  But  now''  adds  he,  verse  20,  "  is 
Christ  risen  from  the  dead,  and  become  the  first 
fruits,  '^  &c.  ;  wherein  he  was  the  antitype  of  the 
sheaf  of  first  fruits  presented  on  the  morrow  after  the 
Sabbath.  Levit.  xxiii.  11.  That  the  Sabbath  du- 
ring which  Christ  lay  in  the  tomb,  was  not  only,  as 
you  contend,  the  first  of  the  two  convocational  Sab- 
baths appertaining  to  the  feast  of  unleavened  bread, 
but  likewise  the  weekly  Sabbath — and,  therefore,  that 
Christ  v/as  crucified  on  the  sixth  day  of  the  week, 
commonly  called  Friday,  and  raised  on  the  Jirst  day 
of  the  week,  commonly  called  Sunday,  I  have  proved 
to  the  satisfaction  of  any  unprejudiced  mind,  in  my 
letter  of  August  7,   1835. 

You  do  not,  indeed,  venture  to  deny  that  Christ 
was  crucified  on  the  sixth  and  raised  on  the  Jirst  day 
day  of  the  week)  ;  yet  ['j^ou  make  a  feeble  effort  to 
render  it  doubtful.  All  j^ou  say,  however,  to  pro- 
duce and  to  fasten  this  doubt,  is  a  mere  contortion 
of  the  question,  whether  Christ  lay  three  entire  days 
and  nights  in  the  tomb,  or  only  the  whole  of  the  Sab- 
l;ath,  with  part  of  the  sixth  and  part  of  the  frst  day. 
The  latter  side  of  this  question  is  so  universally  con- 
curred in  by  learned  commentators  and  theologians, 
that  1  think  it  needless  to  add  any  thing,  but  to  refer 


SABBATH    DISCUSSIOxV*  255 

you  to  my  letter  published  January  30,  1835.  Your 
remark,  that  according  to  this  mode  of  calculation, 
Paul  might  have  fallen  overboard,  and  presently 
have  been  taken  out  of  the  water,  though  true,  is  re- 
ally frivolous.  I  neither  said  nor  thought  that  he 
was  less  than  a  day  and  a  night  in  the  deep  ;  but 
referred  to  his  words,  in  II  Cor.  xi.  25,  merely  to 
prove  that  a  niichthemeron,  a  night-day,  means  a 
natural  day  of  twenty-four  hours  ;  yet  showing  that, 
in  the  Jewish  calculation,  both  the  day  within  v/hich 
any  state  of  things  commenced,  and  that  within 
v/hich  it  ended,  were  included  in  the  number  of  days 
during  which  it  was  said  such  a  state  of  things  last- 
ed. The  same  mode  of  calculation  indeed,  obtains 
among  us.  A  meeting,  for  instance,  that  begins  on 
Saturday  afternoon,  and  ends  on  Monday  morning, 
is  often  called  "  a  three  days'  meeting. 

Changing  the  former  order  of  ideas,  I  proceed  to 
mention,  — 

3.  The  Redeemer's  ascension-gift  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  bestowed  on  the  first  day  of  the  week,  and 
which  certainly  was  a  very  memorable  distinction  of 
this  day.  Here  again  I  find  you,  as  Bunyan  says, 
in  "doubting  castle."  But,  however  much  you 
doubt  it,  the  Scriptures  plainly  show  that  the  pente- 
cost,  which  next  succeeded  the  passover  at  Avhich 
Christ  suffered,  fell  on  the  first  day  of  the  week. 
Christ  died  on  "the  day  before  the  Sabbath."  Mark 
XV.  42.  Compare  Luke  xxiii.  54  —  56.  And  that 
he  rose  on  the  Jirst  of  the  week,  is  asserted  by  all  the 
evangelists.  Hence,  beginning  with  the  morrow  after 
the  Sabbath,  that  is,  the  morrow  after  the  first  of  the 
con  vocational  sabbaths  appertaining  to  the  feast  of 
unleavened  bread,  which  Sabbath  I  have  proved  to 
have  concurred,  at  that  season,  with  the  weeklv  Sab' 


^56  SABBATH    DISCUSSION. 

bath,  — beginning,  I  say,  with  that  morrow,  the  very- 
day  on  which  Christ  arose,  and  counting  off  seven 
sabbaths,  that  is,  weeks,  or  fourty-nine  days,  as  the 
law  required,  they  are  found  to  end  with  a  weekly 
Sabbath  ;  so  that  the  fiftieth  day,  which  was  the  day 
of  PENTKcosT,  7nust  havc  been  the  first  day  of  the 
week.  See  Levit.  xxiii.  15,  16.  To  evade  the  force 
of  this  obvious  fact,  you  say,  in  one  of  your  letters, 
something  like  the  following  :  —  If  we  could  even  ad- 
mit that  the  day  of  pentecost  in  question  fell  on  the 
first  day  of  the  week,  the  descent  of  the  Spirit  on  that 
day  was  not  to  honor  it  as  the  first  of  the  week,  or 
as  the  resurrection-day  of  Christ,  but  as  the  day  of 
pentecost.  Shocking  to  come  from  the  pen  of  a 
Christian  !  What!  did  Christ  come  to  abolish  Juda- 
ish  —  did  he  7iail  its  lohole  ritual  to  Ms  cross ;  and 
yet  did  he  shed  down  the  Spirit  as  if  purposely  to 
confirm  and  perpetuate  it  !  Oh  !  my  brother,  think 
more  consistently,  and  never  publish  nor  utter  such 
a  sentiment  again.     But  to  return. 

As  the  Gospel,  after  the  resurrection  of  Christ, 
was  not  preached  till  on  the  day  of  pentecost,  and 
which,  that  year,  fell  on  the  first  day  of  the  week, 
our  Lord,  who  had  so  directed,  (Luke  xxiv.  49,) 
herein  evidently  indicated  his  purpose,  that  this  day, 
in  its  weekly  returns,  should  constantly  be  observed 
as  a  day  of  public  worship  —  a  day  that  his  disciples 
should  spend  in  prayer  and  thanksgiving,  and  espe- 
cially in  publishing  the  Gospel  to  all  that  should  as- 
semble. Again,  therefore,  I  exclaim,  this  is  the  day 
which  the  Lord  hath  made  ;  as  an  appropriate  symbol 
of  our  present  rest  under  the  Gospel,  and  of  our 
future  and  final  rest  in  heaven  ;  ice  u'ill  rejoice  and 
J?e  glad  in  it.     Ps.  cxviii.  24. 


SABBATH    DISCUSSION*  257 

April  15,  1836. 
That  the  Lord  would  distinguish  the  first  day  of 
the  week,  under  the  Gospel,  as  a  day  of  spiritual 
feasting  and  gladness,  he  was  pleased  to  pre-signity, 
choosing  it  as  the  day  on  which  he  first  granted  the 
manna.  Can  you  be  serious  when  you  say,  "  This  is 
a  mere  assumption  '?  ''  1  have  indeed  shown,  by  a 
rational  chronology  of  the  events  recorded  in  Exo. 
xvi.,  that  the  manna  must  have  begun  to  fall  on  the 
18th  day  af  the  month,  and  not  on  the  16th,  as  com- 
monly supposed.  But  what  has  this  to  do  with  the 
matter  in  question  1  You  surely  have  intellect 
enough  to  perceive  that  a  week  of  seven  days  is  the 
same,  on  whatever  day  of  the  month  it  begins  or 
ends  ;  also  that  the  seventh  or  last  day  of  a  week 
necessarily  supposes  that  week  to  include  six  prece- 
ding days,  and  no  more  nor  less.  Now,  that  the 
Sabbath  mentioned  in  Exo.  xvi.  23,  was  the  seventh 
day  of  the  week,  who  will  not  deny.  And  the  double 
quantity  of  manna  granted  on  the  sixth  day,  that 
there  might  be  a  supply  for  the  Sabbath,  on  "  which 
none  fell,  shows  that,  during  the  six  days,  it  fell 
"  daily,''  or  "  every  day,''  as  asserted  in  the  4th 
and  5th  versos.  But  as  it  fell  every  day  for  5i\rdays, 
on  the  last  of  which  a  double  quantity  indicated  a 
sabbatic  suspension  on  the  next  day,  even  a  child 
can  perceive  that  the  falling  of  it  must  have  com- 
menced on  the  first  day  of  the  the  week.  To  tell 
me,  therefore,  that  J  assume  this  point,  is  equivalent 
to  telling  me  that  I  have  not  mind  enough  to  count 
seven,  at  least  not  to  count  seven  backward.  Besides, 
that  the  following  weeks  for  about  forty  years,  were 
successively  measured  in  like  manner,  you  cannot 
deny.  See  verses  26  and  35.  Your  suggestion  that 
the  manna  might  have  begun  to  fall  some  days  he- 
fore  the  first  day  of  that  week,  is  a  mere  subterfuge. 


258  SABBATH    DISCUSSION. 

As  the  Israelites,  at  that  time,  had  no  other  suste- 
nance, they  doubtless  gathered  the  manna  as  soon 
as  it  was  made  known  to  them,  and  that  was  on  the 
Jirst  day  it  fell.  See  verse  3,  and  from  verse  14  to 
verse  19.  "  And  they  gathered  it  every  morning," 
(ver.  21.)  "  And  it  came  to  pass,  (as  promised  ver. 
5,)  that  on  the  Six/A  day  (of  its  falling,  and  of  tlio 
week  thereby  measured,)  they  gathered  twice  as 
much,"  (fee.  (ver.  22,)  the  reason  for  which,  as  giv- 
en in  ver  23,  was  that  the  next  day,  the  seventh,  was 
the  Sabbath. 

Nor  is  it  any  less  evident,  that  the  manna  thus 
given,  was  typical  of  Christ,  the  true  bread  from 
heaven  ;  and  especially  as  he  is  exhibited  to  believ- 
ers in  the  Gospel  and  its  ordinances  ;  and  as  he, 
being  received  and  fed  on  by  faith,  renews  our 
strength  day  by  day.  See  John  vi.  3132.  I[  Cor. 
iv.  16  ;  viii.  15  ;  and  Rev.  ii.  17  ;  compared  with 
Exo.  xvi.  18. 

Your  intimation  that  Clirist  could  not  be  the  an- 
titype of  the  manna,  because  the  manna,  is  called 
*'  angels'  food,"  I  consider  as  another  instance  of 
reprehensible  inconsideration.  We  know,  indeed, 
that  the  manna  (in  Vs.  Ixxviii.  24,  25,)  is  called  the 
*' corn  of  heaven,"  and  "  angels'  food  ;"  yet,  who 
but  an  idiot  ever  supposed  that  it  is  so  called  because 
the  inhabitans  of  heaven  (immaterial  spirits  !)  live  on 
manna,  or  any  other  material  substance  ?  The 
manna  is  called  "  the  corn  of  heaven,"  probably, 
because  it  was  rained  from  the  clouds  of  heaven  ; 
Exo.  xvi.  4  ;  and  was  the  gift  of  God  ;  Neh.  ix. 
15.  John  vi.  31  ;  and  it  is  called  "angels'  food," 
because,  proba.bly  when  God  had  produced  it,  he 
employed  angels  in  collecting  it,  and  in  directing  its 
daily  descent  to  the  camp  of  Israel  ;  and  hence,  by 
allusion    thereto,    Gospel    ministers    are    sometimes 


SABBATH    DISCUSSION.  259 

Galled  angels,  that  is,  messengers ;  because  Christ 
employs  them  in  collecting  the  edifying  truths  which 
are  revey.lcd  concerning  himself  the  true  bread,  and 
in  dispensing  the  same  to  tlie  sojourners  in  the  camp 
of  his  spiritual  Israel.  "  the  Church  of  the  living 
God."  See  Matt,  xxiv.  31.  Rev.  i.  20.  Also  my 
Sermons  on  Deut.  xxxiii  vol.  i.  p.  72, 

To  evade  the  manifest  fact,  that  God,  by  the  fall- 
ing of  the  manna,  renewed  to  Israel  the  certain 
knowledge  of  the  seventh  day,  in  its  weekly  returns, 
you  affect  to  believe  that  the  Jews,  to  the  end  of 
their  stay  in  Egypt,  retained  that  knowledge,  by  a 
weekly  observance  of  the  Sabbath,  and  that  they 
brought  both  the  knowledge  and  the  observance  vv^ith 
them  into  the  wilderness.  But,  if  so,  why  did  none 
of  their  rulers,  v/ho  had  the  oversight  of  gathering 
and  distributing  the  manna,  know  the  reason  and 
design  of  the  surplus  moiety,  when  they  found  a 
doiible  quantity  on  the  sixth  day  ]  Exo.  xvi.  22. — 
This,  to,  is  the  more  remarkable,  because  the  design 
had  been  hinted  to  them  before,  as  in  verse  5.  But 
"  the  rulers  of  the  congregation,"  nonplussed  at  the 
sight,  "  came  and  told  Moses  ;"  w^ho,  by  inspira- 
tion, '•  said  unto  them,  This  is  that  which  the  Lord 
hath  said  To-morroicis  the  rest  of  the  holy  Sabbath 
unto  the  Lord  ;  bake  that  which  ye  will  bake  to-day, 
and  seethe  that  ye  will  seethe  ;  and  that  which  re- 
mainethover,  (it  being  baked  or  seethed,)  lay  up  to 
be  kept  untij  the  morrow.  Verses  22  and  23.  Be- 
sides, the  highest  authorities  among  the  Jews  admit, 
that  they  did  not  keep  the  Sabbath  in  Egypt  ;  mean- 
ing, no  doubt,  during  their  great  oppression,  for 
about  150  years,  commencing  when  "  another  king 
arose,  who  knew  not  Joseph. "  Acts  vii.  18.  Even 
Maimonides,  speaking  in  the  name  of  his  nation,  af- 
ter mentioning  their  servitude  in  Egypt,  immediately 


260  SABBATH    DISCUSSION. 

adds,  "  all  which  time  we  could  not  serve  according 
to  our  own  will  and  pleasure,  nor  had  any  rest,  nor 
observed  a  Sabbath.     More  Nevocli.     p.   ii.  c.  31. 

Your  attempt  (December  4,  1835,)  to  prove  that 
the  Gospel  Church  continued  the  observance  of  the 
seve7ith-day  Sabbath,  by  showing  that  the  apostles, 
on  that  day,  commonly  wont  into  the  synagogues 
to  preach,  is  weak  in  the  extreme.  That  the  apos- 
tles did  so,  is  as  well  known  to  other  Christians 
as  to  Sabbatarians  ;  but  I  hesitated  not  to  say,  that 
no  enlightened  reader  of  the  New  Testament,  de- 
liberately considering  the  circumstances  of  those 
times,  can  regard  this  usage  of  the  apostles  as  any 
evidence  that  they  retained  the  sabbatic  observance 
of  the  seventh  day.  It  only  proves  that  the  unbe- 
lieving Jews  continued  in  that  observance,  as  they  do 
to  the  prsent  time  ;  and  that  the  apostles,  knowing 
that  such  Jews  statedly  assembled  in  their  synagogues 
on  the  seventh-day  Sabbath,  went  thither  on  that  day 
to  preach  to  them  ;  not  to  support  Judaism,  but  to 
show  that  it  was  abolished  by  Christ.  For  this  pur- 
pose, "  Paul,  as  his  manner  was,  went  in  unto  them, 
and  three  Sabbath-days  reasoned  with  them  out  of 
the  Scriptures  ;  opening  and  alleging  that  Christ 
must  needs  have  suffered  and  risen  again  from  the 
dead  ;  and  that  (directly  addressing  them,)  this  Je- 
sus whom  I  preach  unto  you,  is  Christ."  This  he 
did  in  the  synagogue  at  Thessalonica.  Acts  xvii. 
1 — 3.  The  same  also  he  did  at  Athens,  both  in  the 
synagogue  and  in  the  market  daily  ;  verse  17.  And 
at  Ephesus,  *'  he  went  into  the  synagogue  and  spake 
boldly  (whenever  opportunity  offered,)  for  the  space 
of  three  months,  disputing  and  persuading  the  things 
concerning  the  kingdom  of  God.  Acts  xix.  8.  "But 
(being  much  opposed,)  he  departed  from  them,  and 
separated  the  disciples,   (the  twelve  mentioned  ver. 


SABBATH    DISCUSSION.  Hdt 

i,  7,)  who  followed  him  when  lie  departed  from  the 
synagogue,  and  listened  to  him  "  disputing  daily  in 
the  school  of  one  Tyrannus  /  verse  9.  The  same 
was  the  object  of  Paul  and  Silas  at  Salamis  ;  Acts 
xii.  5.  Again  as  recorded  in  the  same  chapter, 
when  Paul  and  Barnabas  had  arrived  at  Antioch  in 
Pisidia,  Paul,  being  invited  to  speak  in  the  synagogue, 
gave  a  brief  history  of  his  nation,  from  their  exodus 
out  of  Egypt,  to  their  rejection  and  crucifixion  of 
Christ  ;■  noting  the  sad  consequences  to  which  the 
latter,  i£  not  repented  of,  would  subject  them.  See 
verse  14 — 41.  **  And,''  as  follows,  "when  the 
Jews, ''  displeased  at  what  the  apostle  had  said,  "were 
gone  out  of  the  synagogue,  the  Gentiles, '' who  had 
attended,  and  who  were  moved  by  what  they  had 
heard,  "  besought  that  these  words,  *'  these  Gospel 
doctrines,  "  might  be  preached  to  them  the  next 
Sabbath  ;  ''^  thus  suggesting  that  they  would  gladly 
hear  what  the  Jews  rejected  ;  yet  v/illing  that  the 
Jews,  if  so  disposed,  might  participate  in  the  favor, 
they  requested  that  it  might  be  granted  on  the  the  next 
-ensuing  Sabbath,  when  the  Jews,  as  usual,  would  be 
assembled.  "  And  the  next  Sabbath  day,  "  the  ru- 
mor having  gone  abroad,  "  came  also  the  whole  citv 
together,  to  hear  the  word  of  God.  Nor  did  they 
come  in  vain  ;  for  "  as  many  as  were  ordained  to 
eternal  life  believed. ''     See  from  verse  42  to  48. 

That  the  apostles  themselves,  for  a  time,  felt  a 
lingering  adherence  to  Jewish  usages,  is  evident  from 
the  case  of  Peter,  who  needed  and  received  a  vision 
from  heaven  to  instruct  him.  Acts  x.  And  even  af- 
ter thus  instructed,  they  did  some  things  merely  to 
gain  access  to  the  JewvS.  For  this  reason,  manifestly, 
Paul  circumcised  Timothy.  Acts  xvi.  3.  Comp.  I 
Cor.  ix  19 — 23.  Besides,  in  regard  to  things  indif- 
ferent, Paul  exercised  and  inculcated  much  forbear- 


20*2  SABBATH    DISCUSSION. 

aiicc  toward  Jewish  converts,  who  were  weak  in  the 
faith.  Rom.  xiv.  The  sam6  also  was  felt  and 
done  by  other  distinguished  Christians.  According- 
ly, when  Paul  came  to  Jerusalem,  James  and  the  el- 
ders, though  glad  to  hear  of  his  success  among  the 
Gentiles,  were  afraid  that  his  doctrine  and  practice 
would  grieve  weak  believers,  and  exasperate  obstinate 
unbelievers  ;  to  prevent  which,  they  persuaded  him 
to  concur  with  four  men,  v/eak  brethren,  who  had  a 
Nazaritish  vow  on  them  ;  hoping  that  by  so  doing, 
he  would  be  the  more  acceptible  and  useful.  This 
affair,  much  as  you  make  of  it,  was,  on  the  part  of 
Paul,  and  of  James  and  the  elders,  at  most  a  mere 
effort  of  Christian  prudence.  Paul,  persuaded  there- 
to by  James  and  the  elders,  ventured  to  comply,  that, 
for  the  time  being,  he  might  not  grieve,  but  have  the 
better  opportunity  to  teach  the  many  thousands  of  the 
Jews  who  helicved  ;  hut  loere  all  zealous  of  the  law. — 
See  Acts  xxi.  17. 

You  think  it  strange  that,  if  the  apostles  and  other 
<  Vnrisliftns  in  their  times  had  observed  the^?'5^  day  of  the 
week  instead  of  the  seventh,  there  was  no  disputation 
about  it  between  them  and  the  Jews,  as  there  was  about 
circumcision,  the  passover,  &c.  The  reason  of  this 
diflerencs  is  easily  accounted  for  :  the  controversy 
which  the  apostles  had  v/ith  the  Jews  .  related  cliiefty 
to  such  things  as,  according  to  Jewish  principles,  in- 
icifercd  with  the  apostolic  doctrine,  that  free  justifi- 
cation, by  faith  in  Christ,  should  be  preached  to  all 
nations.  Sec  Acts  x.  43  ;  xi.  21  ;  xiii.  38,  39. 
Rom.  iii.  19— 28  ;  x.  1— 4.  I  Pet  iii,  18.  I  John  i. 
3,  7,  9  ;  ii.  1,  2  ;  iv.  9.  Now,  according  to  the 
doctrine  of  judaizing  teachers,  except  even  Gentile 
converts  were  circumcised,  and  kept  the  law  of  Mo- 
ses, to  which  also  the  passover  belonged,  they  could 
not  he  saved.     Acts^x-V.  1,  24.      But  the  Sabbath  had 


SABBATH      DISCUSSION.  263 

no  direct  concern  in  this  question.  The  Gospel  of  the 
grace  of  God,  publishing  free  justification  in  the  impu- 
ted righteousness  of  Christ,  received  by  faith,  might 
be  preached  on  the  seventh,  or  on  any  other  day  of  the 
week,  as  well  as  on  the  first.  Moreover,  as  the 
apostles,  for  reasons  above  mentioned,  attended  the 
Jewish  synagogues  on  the  seventh  day,  and,  no 
doubt,  the  other  Christians  also,  to  hear  the  apostles 
preach,  the  Jews  seem  to  have  disregarded  their 
meeting  in  Christian  assemblies,  as  they  constantly 
did,  on  the  first  day  of  the  week.  Acts  xx.  7.  J  Cor. 
xvi.  2.  Read  the  comparison  o?  synagogues  with 
pagodas,  in  my  letter  of  JSeptember  18,  1835 

The  testimony  in  favor   of  observing  the  seventh 
day,  v/hich,  in  your  letter  of  December  4,    1835,  you 
adduce  from  early  Christian   writers,   is,    to  say   no 
more,  extremely  equivocal  ;  for  each  of  them  says  at 
least  as  much  against  the  observance,  as  in  favor  of 
it.      Taking  for  granted,  that  by  Socrates  you  mean 
Socrates  Scliolasticus,  and  having  in    my    possession 
a  copy  of  a  very  ancient  edition  of  his  history,  bound 
up  with  what  the  learned  consider  the    best  edition  of 
Eusehiiis  Pam-phylus,  who  preceded  h  im,  and  a  copy 
of  Evagrlus  Scliolasllcus  who  succeeded  him,  as  also 
one  oi  Dorotheus  on  the  prophets,  apostles,  and  sev- 
enty disciples,  I  turned  to  the  work,  and  was    rather 
surprised  that  any  man  should  refer  to    Socrates    for 
the  purpose  you  do.      The  words  you  quote  are  in  Lib. 
5.  c.  21  ;  corresponding  to  the  Greek   of   Keph.    22. 
The  author's  subject  in  that  chapter,  is  the  controver- 
sy about  keeping  Easter  as  a   substitute  for  the  Jew- 
ish  passover.      In  his  account,  those    who   kept  that 
festival  and  other  days  specified  in  the  law  of  Moses, 
were  "  such  as  observed    Jewish    customs — neither 
weighed  deeply  that  when  Jewish   forms  and   figures 
were  translated  into  Christian  f^iith,    the   literal  ob- 
q2 


164  SABBATH     DISCUSSIO.V. 

servation  of  I\Ioses'  law  and  the  tyi^es  of  things  to 
come,  wholly  vanislied  away.''  Applying  his  dis- 
course to  all  days  observed  by  the  Jews,  he  saj's, 
^'  The  apostle  hath  in  plain  words  forbidden  it';  '^ 
and  having  shown  by  what  the  apostle  said  to  the  Gal- 
atians  against  observing  days,  and  months,  and  times^ 
and  years,  [Gal.  iv.  10,]  that  "  the  Jews,  [under  a 
Christian  name,]  were  become  servants  to  the  law,'' 
from  which  "  such  as  were  called  into  the  Christian 
faith,  were  of  right  made  free,''  he  observes  that 
'*  The  apostle  unto  the  Colosslans,  [chap.  ii.  16,  17, J 
IS  as  plain  as  may  be,  saying.  That  the  observance 
of  such  things  was  nothing  but  a  shadow;  Let  no 
man  therefore  judge  you  in  meat  or  in  drink,  in  a 
'piece  of  an  holy  d.ay,  or  of  the  nev)  moon,  or  of 
the  Sabbath,  ivhich  are  as  but  shadows  of  things  to 
conip..^^  Thus  Socrates  proceeds  to  inveigh  against 
judaizing,  till,  as  if  to  expose  the  most  extravagant 
instance  of  it,  he  exclaims,  "  In  a  manner  alt  the 
Churches  throughout  the  whole  world  do  celebrate 
and  receive  the  holy  mysteries  every  Sabbath-day  af- 
ter other."  But,  if  this  testimony  be  of  ary  avail, 
remember  that  the  same  Socrates,  and  in  the  same 
chapter,  says,  "  Every  one  in  every  place,  of  a  cer- 
tain custom,  do  celebrate  the  remembrance  of  the 
Lord's  passion  ;''  which  affords  equal,  nay,  strong- 
er evidence  that  the  Lord's  day,  the  first  day  of  the 
week,  was  then  observed  ;  for  that,  we  know  from 
Scripture,  was  the  day  on  which  the  disciples  of  Christ 
met  to  break  bread.  Acts  xx.  7.  Athanasius,  re- 
ferred to  by  Dr.  Cave,  like  many  others  in  his  time, 
observed  both  days,  and,  by  way  of  apology,,  said, 
*'We  assemble  on  Siturday,  not  that  we  are  infected 
with  Judaism,  but  only  to  worship  Jesus,  the  Lord 
of  the  Sabbath  ;"  and  who,  as  such,  had  power  to 
(ro-nsfer  the  observance,  by  his  example,  to   the   day 


SABBATH    DISCUSSION.  165 

of  his  resurrection.  As  Sozomenus  was  cotemporary 
with  Socrates,  and  said  much  the  same  things,  his  con- 
trndictory  testimony,  h'ke  thai  of  Socrates,  stands  for 
nothing.  Alt  that  GroUus,  on  this  question,  proves, 
amounts  to  no  more.  Of  what  31.  Dela  Roquc  asserts 
in  answer  to  Boseut,  I  can  say  nothing  ;  not  poss- 
essing his  book,  nor  having,  that  I  recollect,  ever 
read  it.  By  Moi^e,  you  must  mean  Morei'i,  author 
of  the  French  Historical  Dictionary  which  bears 
his  name.  On  turning  to  his  dictionary,  1  find  Tittle 
more  than  a  record  of  tlie  clashing  opinions  of 
others.  I  am  glad  you  have  referred  to  Br.  Cham- 
bers ;  he  says  much  in  favor  of  my  views  of  the  mat- 
ter in  question.  In  his  Cyclop.  Art.  Sunday^  having 
mentioned  Constantiue^  he  says,  "  Betbre  his  time, 
and  even  in  his  time,  they,''  the  Christians  of  whom 
he  was  speaking,  "  observed  the  Sabhath  as  well  as 
Sunday  ;  both  to  sanctify  the  law  of  Moses,  [in  ob- 
serving the  seventh  day,]  and  to  imitate  the  apos- 
tles ;"  who,  therefore,  must  have  observed  Sunday  ; 
indeed  he  says,  "  they  used  to  meet  together  on  the 
lirst  day. ''  He  adds,  "  It  is  certain  that  the  regard 
was  had  to  the  Jirst  day,  during  apostolic  times, 
in  the  meetings  of  the  Church.  And  under  the  Art. 
Sabbath,  Chambers  says,  "  The  first  day  was  in- 
stituted by  the  apostles  to  take  place  of  the  Jew- 
ish Sabbath,  and  by  us  is  observed  in  remem- 
brance, not  of  creation,  but  of  the  work  of  re- 
demption ;  being  completed  by  our  Saviour's  resur- 
rection on  that  day."  Your  quotation  from  Calvin 
I  have  not  yet  been  able  to  find.  But,  if  yoii  will 
read  his  explanation  of  the  fourth  commandment, 
you  will  see  that  he  considered  the  observance  of  the 
seventh  day  to  have  been  abolished  by  Christ  ; — nay, 
he  goes  farther  than  I  can  ;  he  considers  those  to 
judaize,  w^ho  only  retain  the  moral    obligation  of  the 


^^^  SABBATH    DISCUSSIOI^. 


sabbatic  institution,  under  the  Gospel  dispensation  ; 
and  commends  the  observance  of  the  first  day  which 
he  calls  "  the  Lord's  day, ''  merely  as  a  matter  of 
religious  and  civil  decorum,  and  as  an  occasion  for 
ttie  assembling  of  Christians,  and  the  preaching  of 
the  Gospel  to  all  that  convene  "  The  apostle,  "  he  ob- 
serves, "  says  that  the  Sabbath  was  a  shadow  of 
things  to  come,  but  the  body  is  of  Christ.  Col.  ii  16, 
17.  "  See  Calvin's  exposition  of  the  moral  law  : 
Ihst.  book  II.  chap,  viii   sect.  2  8 — 34. 

Your  conclusions,  therefore,  however  specious 
they  may  appear  to  yourself  or  others,  are  in  my 
htimble  opinion,  wholly  unfounded  ;  being  all  drawn 
fh>m  arguments  and  objections  thus  fairly  met  and 
refuted.  One  letter  more  will  finish  my  present  se- 
ries. 

With  all  due  esteem,  I  remain. 

Yours  in  cordial  friendship, 

WM.  PARKINSON. 


LETTER     XXIV, 


Dear  Brother,— A  few  things  move  in  your  letter 
of  December  11,  1835,  claim  some  notice.     Of  these, 
the  first  is  your  further  effort  to   render   it  doubttul 
whether   Clwist   rose  on   the  first  day  of  the  week. 
You  say,  **  respecting  the  time  of  our  Lord  s  resur- 
section,  I  have  no  particular  intere^,  besides  what  is 
imposed  upon  me  by  consistency.^'     But  this,  by  th« 
way,  (  in  regard  to  the  question  between  us,  }  is  tti« 
sreate&t  interest  you  could  possibly  have  in  the  decision. 
You  well  know  that  the  befef  that  Christ  rose  on  the 
first  day  of  the  week,  is  universally  the  principal  rea- 
son for  observing  the   day  ;  also,  that  many  Sabbat- 
rarians  avow,  that  if  they  were  convinced  that  Christ 
rose  on  that  day,  they  would  observe  it.     Therefore, 
io  be  consistent  with  yourself,  and  to  sustain  the  con- 
tinued observance  of  the  seventh  day,  it  is  the  highest 
interest  of  your  cause  to  obscure  what  you  know  you 
^..annot  confute.  — to  wit,  the  scriptural  evidence  that 
Christ  rose  on  the  first  day  of  the  week.      You  further 
say,  *'I  have  no  objections  to  its  having  occurred  on 
the  first  day  of  the  week  ;  but  as  the  Scriptures  do 
Bot  state,  nor  necessarily  imply,  that  it  ( the  resur- 
rection of  Christ, )  took  place  on  that  day,  I  am  under 


^68-  SABBATH  Drscussroi^. 

no  obligation  to  believe  it,  excepting  what  is  due  te= 
general  opinion.  "      Shocking  audacity  ! 

Like  other  Sabbatarian  writersy  \jnd  like  those  wri- 
ters, too,  who  contend  that  the  observance  of  the  first 
day  should  commence  at  sunset  on  Saturday  evening, 
you  avail  yourself  of  Dr.  McKnighl's  comment  on 
Matt,  xxviii.  1-  1  admit  that  our  version  of  the 
words  in  question,  though  ii  exhibits  the  true  time  of 
our  Lord's  resurrection,  does  not  fairly  present  the 
evidence  of  it  as  given  ill  the  original.  Therefore  1 
will  give  a  translation  of  the  disputed  words  in  the 
verse  as  I  understand  them.  But,  prepanitory  thereto^ 
I  beg  leave  to  make  the  following  remarks  : 

1.  That  opse,  rendered  "in  the  end,''  is  used  by 
Greek  writers  as  meaning  afler,  and  not  only  iviine- 
dialely  after,  but  inde finitely  so.  See  Dr.  Lightfoot. 
vol.  i.  p.  746.  And  Dr.  Wells,  ( Annot.  on  Matt, 
xxviii.  1.  )  says,  that  "  with  a  genitive  case,  "  (  as  in 
the  instance  before  us,  )  "  it  is  used  to  denote  a  good 
while  after J^  Thus,  in  Philostmtus  we  have  opsc 
ton  troikon,  which  we  know  from  the  coniiection  must 
mean  a  long  time  after  the  Trojan  war ;  and  opse 
tou  basileos  chrinon,  a  long  while  after  the  king^s 
days.  So  opse,  in  the  text  before  us,  means  after  the 
sabbath,  long  enough  to  agree  with  the  other  evan- 
gelists, wno  make  it  reach  to  the  morning  dawn. 
Mark  xvi.  1,  9.      Luke  xxiv.  1.      John  xx.  1. 

2.  That,  in  the  passage  under  consideration,  the 
same  word  is  rendered  sabbath  and  weeL  It  is  in 
each  place  sabbaton,  genitive  plural  ;  literally,  of  the 
sabbaths.  In  its  first  occurrence  in  this  this  verse,  I 
believe  it  should  be  rendered  sabbaths,  as  meaning 
both  the  seventh-day  sabbath  and  the  fir.st  of  the  two 
con  vocational  sabbaths  appertaining  to  the  feast  of 
unleavened  bread,  which,  at  that  season,  as  proved 
in  my  letter  of  August  7,  1835,  fell  on  the  weekly 


SABBATH    DISCUSSION. 


269 


Sabbath.     And  in  its  second  occurrence  in  the  verse, 
it  should  be  rendered  weeksy   as  denouug  the  seven 
Sabbaths,  that^is,  weeks  ;  which,  according  to  Levil, 
xxiii.  15,  began  to  be  counted  on  the  morroio  after  the 
Sabbath;  that  is,  on  the  morrow  after  the  first  day  of 
the  feast  of  unleavened  bread  ;    Vv'hich  was  always 
called  a  sahbath,  whatever  day  of  the  week  it  might 
fall   on,  but  which,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord's  cruci- 
fixion, concurred  with  the  weekly  Sabbath,  as  just 
noticed.      These  seven  weeks  reached  from  the  pass- 
over  to  pentecost.     Hence  pentecost  was  called  "  the 
feast    of   shabugnoth,^^    sabbaths,    or    weeks.     Exo. 
xxxiv.  22.     Deut.  xvi.  16.      II  Chron.  viii.  13.     And 
whereas,  at  the  all-important  season  under  consider 
ation,  '•  the  morrow  after  the  Sabbath"  was  the  mor- 
row after  the  iceekly  as  well  as  the  festival  Sabbath, 
the  numbering    of  the  seven    weeks,    or   forty-nine 
days,  must  have  commenced  with  the  first  day  of  the 
week  —  nay,  with  that  identified /rs^  day  of  the  week 
on  which  Christ  arose  ;  and,    consequently,    the  for- 
ty-ninth day  must  have  been  a  weekly  Sabbath,  and 
th3  fiftieth  day,  the  day  of  jjentecost,  that  season  imist, 
as  before  proved,  have  fallen  on  the  first  day  of  the 
week. 

3.  That  epiphoskouse,  (  from  epi,  upon  or  besides, 
and  phosko,  to  shine,)  rendered  "as  it  began  to 
dawn,"  denotes,  like  the  Hebrew  word  Nashaph,  "a 
mixture  of  light  and  darkness,"  commonly  called 
twilight ;  and  which  is  alike  applicable  to  the  morn- 
ing as  to  the  evening.  Scripture  often  mentions  the 
dawning  of  the  morning  and  of  the  day.  Sec  Josh, 
vi.  lb.  Judges  xix.  26.  Job  iii.  9  ;  xxiv.  15.  Ps. 
cxix.  147. 

Mv  translation,  therefore,  of  the  words  in  question, 
and  which  I  propose  as  the  literal  meaning  of  them, 
is  this  :  After  the  sabbaths,  as  it  began  to  dawn   to- 


^70  «ABBATH     DISCUSSION. 

toard  the  first  of  the  iceeks,  came  Mary  Magdalene, 
&c.     Herein  observe,  that  the  words  "  as  it  began  to 
(lawn  toward  the  first  of  the  weeks,''  must  necessa* 
rily  mean  ''as  it  began  to  dawn  toward  the  first  day 
of  the  weeks  ;"  and,  therefore,  that  the  time  thereby 
noted  is  precisely  the  same  that  is  noted  by  our  com*- 
mon  version  ;  to  wit,  the  breaking  of  day  in  the  morn-- 
ing  oHhc  first  (  day  )  of  the  week. "  Of  seven  weeks, 
as  well  as  of  one  week,  there   must  be  a  first  day. 
Thus  Matthew's  account  of  our  Lord's  resurrection, 
perfectly  accords  with  that  given  by  the  other  evan- 
gelists.     They  all  speak  of  the  paraskeue,  the  prepar- 
ation^ i.  e.  for  the  Sabbath,    as   having  occurred  on 
the  day  of  our  Lord's  crucifixion.  —  Matthew  (chap- 
ter xxvii.  62,  )  calls  the  Sabbnth  during  which  Christ 
lay  in  the  sepulchre,  "  the  next  day  that  followed  the 
day  of  the  preparation  ;  "  substituting  this  periphrasis 
for  the  word  Sabbath,  to  signify  that  the  Jews  had 
spent  the  day,  not  sabbaticaJly,  but  wickedly,  in  cher- 
ishing and  venting  their  maiice  against  Christ,  as  re- 
lated in  verse  63.     Mark  (  xv.  42,  )  speaking  of  the 
crucifixion-day,    says,    "when  the  even  was  come, 
(^because  it  was  the  preparation,  that  is,  the  day  be- 
fore   the    Sabbath )    &c.     Luke    (  xxiii.    54,  )   says, 
"  that  day,  "  the  day  of  the  crucifixion,    "  was  the 
preparation,  and  the  Sabbath,"  for  which  the  prep- 
aration was   to  be   made,    "  drew  on.  "     And  John 
says,  "that  Sabbath-day  svas  an  high  day,  "  because 
that  year  the  festival  Sabbath  fell  on  the  weekly  Sab- 
bath.    John  xix.  3L     Compare  verse  42.     The  day 
on  which  such  a  concurrence  happened,   was  called 
sabbatum  magnum,  a  great  Sabbath.      See   Godwin, 
Mosc.7,  and  Aaron;  L.  8.  cap.  3.  p.  110.      It  is  also 
known  to  the  learned,  that  the   Hebrews  called  the 
afternoon  of  the  sixth  day  of  the  week,  from  three  to 
six  o'clock,  gnereb  hashabbath,  the   Sabbath-eve,  and 


SABBATH  Discussror^.  271 

that  the  termination  of  that  time,  or  six  o'clock  that 
evening,  as  being  the  end  of  the  preparation,  was,  by 
the  Greeks,  called  parisodon  sabbaton,  and  by  the 
Hebrews,  biath  hashabbath,  the  entrance  of  the' Sab- 
bath. Moreover,  they  had  an  appropriate  term  to  de- 
note the  time  between  three  and  six,  P.  M.  on  Friday  ; 
to  wit,  hachannah,  which,  like  the  Greek  paraskeue, 
signifies  preparation  or  *'  disposition,  i.  e.  a  regular 
arrangement,  "  or  setting  in  order.  See  Sealig  de 
emend.  Temp.  I.  6.  p.  269.  Godwin  M.  8f  A.  L.  3. 
c.  3.  p.  iii.  ;  and  hingua  Sac.  under  cun,  to  prepare^, 
set  in  order. 

Wherefore,  as  noticed  in  a  former  letter,  the 
women  who  had  witnessed  the  crucifixion  and  inter- 
ment of  their  dear  Saviour,  though  they  "  prepared 
spices  and  ointments  to  embalm  his  sacred  body," 
yet  (because  the  Sabbath  drew  on,  )  deferred  the  ap- 
plication, "and  rested  the  Sabbath,  according  to  the 
commandment. ''  Luke  xxiii.  56.  But,  "  after  the 
sahhaths,  ihe  festival  Sabbath  and  the  weekly  Sabbath, 
which,  at  that  season,  concurred,  they  ''  came  early 
to  the  sepulchre,  "  as  testified  by  all  the  evangelists, 
to  accomplish  their  holy  design.  In  the  mean  time, 
however,  the  angel  had  descended,  the  earthquake 
had  occurred,  and  the  sacred  body,  being  "  quickened 
by  the  Spirit,  "  was  raised  and  removed  :  "He  is 
not  here,  "  said  the  angel  ;  "for  he  is  risen,  as  he 
said.  "  Matt,  xxviii.  6.  His  redemption  from  the 
tomb,  therefore,  with  the  virtual  redemption  of  all 
represented  in  him,  must  have  occurred  long  before 
day  ;  and,  very  probably,  at  midnight,  as  tvpified  in 
the  redemption  of  Israel  from  Egyptian  bondage. 
See  Exo.  xii.  29  —  31.  The  very  darkness  of  the 
hour  was  mystically  significant.  How  dark  was  the 
condition  of  Israel  in  Egypt  —  especially  just  before 
their  release  !      How  deplorable  the  apparent  condi- 


27*2  SABBATH     DISCUSSION. 

tioa  of  mankind  —  nay,  of  the  disciples  themselves^ 
until  it  was  known,  at  day-light,  that  Jesus,  the  Sa- 
viour, was  risen  !  And  how  dismal  are  the  appre- 
hensions oi' sinners  under  the  conviction,  till  the  light 
of  salvation,  through  the  risen  Saviour,  dawns  upon 
their  souls  ! 

That  "  the  Sabbath  was  past  "  when  Christ  rose, 
we  know  from  Mark  xvi.  1  ;  and  that  he  was  risen 
on  "the  first  of  the  week,  early,  when  it  was  yet 
dark,  "  we  know  from  John  xx.  1.  Therefore, 
though  we  a:re  not  told  the  precise  hour  in  which  he 
rose,  as  nothing  appears  to  the  contrary,  I  believe 
that,  correspondent  to  the  type  in  Israel's  redemption, 
he  rose  at  midnight.  Hence,  also,  I  believe  that  the 
sacred  time  appertaining  to  his  resurrection-day,  pro- 
perly commences  at  midnight.  —  To  this,  you,  like 
others,  will  object  that  it  supposes  a  chasm  (as  it 
does,  )  of  about  six  hours  between  the  end  of  the  Sab- 
bath, at  sunset,  and  the  commencement  of  the  first 
day  of  the  week,  at  midnight.  This  chasm,  however, 
you  must  remember,  made  no  abridgement  of  the 
natural  day  which  succeeded  the  Sabbath  ;  foi;  this, 
as  a  natural  day,  must,  as  always,  have  begun  when 
the  Sabbath  ended  ;  and  the  time  of  that  natural  day, 
from  its'  commencement  till  midnight,  was  the  time 
that  constituted  the  last  of  the  three  niichthemera, 
night-days,  in  which  Christ  was  in  the  sepulchre. — 
But  the  chasm  related  to  sacred  time  ;  it  intervened 
between  the  going  out  —  nay,  the  abrogation  of  the 
Jewish  Sabbath  and  the  commencement  of  the  sacred 
rest,  as  then  transferred  to  the  Lord's  day.  And 
that  some  such  variation,  in  regard  to  the  weekly 
period  of  sacred  time,  would  occur,  was  plainly  indi- 
cated at  the  institution  of  its  observance  ;  for,  as 
noticed  in  a  former  letter,  though  it  is  said,  "the 
evening  and  the  morning  were  \\\g  first — second  — 


SABBATH    DISCLSSION.  273 

third — fourth — fifth — sixth  day  ;  Gen.  i.  5,  8,  13, 
19,  23,  31  ;  yet  no  such  specified  limits  were  assigned 
to  the  seventh  day.  Gen.  ii.  2,  3.  Accordingly,  it 
is  certain  that,  in  regard  to  sacred  time,  the  day  on 
which  Christ  rose  did  not  begin  at  sunset  ;  for  then  it 
must  have  ended  at  sunset ;  whereas  we  know  that, 
on  the  evening  of  the  same  day  on  which  he  arose, 
*'  being  t\\e  first  of  the  week,  "  as  also  on  the  evening 
of  the  next  ensuing  first  day,  he  appeared  in  the 
midst  of  his  assembled  disciples  ;  John  xx.  19,  26  ; 
and  that  his  appearance  among  them  on  the  evening 
of  the  da}'^  on  v/hich  he  rose  was  after  night,  is  evi- 
dent from  the  fact  that  the  two  disciples  with  whom 
he  had  supped  at  Emmaus,  and  to  whom  he  had  made 
himself  known  "  in  the  breaking  of  bread,  ''  had  trav- 
eled back  to  Jerusalem,  a  distance  of  "three  score 
furlongs,  "  that  is,  seven  miles  and  a  half,  and  were 
with  their  brethren  when  the  Lord  appeared  among 
them  — This,  too,  is  b}^  Luke  called  *' that  same 
day,  '''  noted  before  as  tiie  day  of  his  resurrection  ; 
and,  by  the  two  disciples,  "  the  third  day''  from  his 
death,  and  the  day  on  which  the  women,  who  were 
early  at  the  sepulchre,  reported  that  they  had  not 
found  the  Lord's  body,  but  had  seen  "  a  vision  of  an- 
gels, which  said  that  he  was  alive.  "  See  Luke 
xxiv.  13,  34.  But  as,  according  to  John  xx.  19,  the 
time  of  that  appearance  of  Christ  among  his  disciples 
was  on  "the  same  day"  before  described  as  his  re- 
surrection-day, "  boing  the  first  day  of  the  week*,  '■  it 
is  certain  that,  in  regard  to  sacred  time,  that  day  did 
not  end  at  sunset,  but  at  (  or  about  )  midnight. 

It  is  also  worthy  of  notice,  that  to  have  the  obser- 
vance of  the  Lord's  day  to  begin  and  end  with  the 
setting  of  the  sun,  is  an  almost  certain  way  to  have 
much  of  it  at  least  secularized,  if  not  'profaned.  It  is 
well  known  that,  on  Saturday  evening,  many,  especi- 


274  SABBATH    DISCUSSION. 

aliy  females,  are  usually,  and  it  would  seem  inevitably, 
engaged  liU  eight,  nine,  or  ten  o'clock,  in  finishmg 
their  week's  work.  Many,  too,  on  Saturday  even- 
ing, as  the  result  either  of  necessity  or  of  antecedent 
neglect,  have  to  procure  supplies  from  groceries  ; 
which,  to  accommodate  such  customers  —  nay,  often 
to  accommodate  tipplers,  are  kept  open  later  than 
usual  on  that  evening.  Moreover,  many,  having 
closed  their  week's  labor  and  received  their  wages, 
make  Saturday  evening,  and  often  till  late  at  night, 
a  time  of  idle  and  sensual  gratification.  And  these 
habits,  among  those  who  regard  hohj  time  merely  as 
idle  time,  are  doubtless  greatly  promoted  by  the  usage 
of  beginning  suck  time  at  sunset.  Nor  is  this  usage 
any  less  pernicious  in  regard  to  Sunday  evening  ; 
for,  not  only  the  irreligious^  old  and  young,  male 
and  female,  bond  and  free,  (  who  had  been  kept  under 
some  restraint  by  the  idea  of  sacred  time,  )  but  the 
religious  also,  understanding  the  Lord's  day  to  have 
ended  at  sunset,  all  hasten  to  the  pursuits  which  they 
respectively  choose  ;  as,  for  instance,  the  children  to 
play  —  the  apprentices,  perhaps,  to  haunts  of  vice  — 
the  gay,  to  amusements,  at  home  or  abroad  —  and 
the  avaricious,  to  labor  :  whereas,  if  they  understood 
the  Lord's  day,  as  it  would  seem  the  disciples  did,  to 
begin  and  end  at  midnight,  like  them,  Christians  at 
least,  and  probably  many  others  influenced,  by  their 
example  and  persuasions,  would  attend  an  evening 
meeting  for  devotional  purposes.  Nay,  more  ;  some 
of  those  who  by  reason  of  a  Saturday-night's  revel, 
had  slept  or  lounged  aw^ay  most  of  the  Lord's  day, 
might,  peradventure,  be  prevailed  on  to  go  to  a  reli- 
gious meeting  in  the  evening  ;  and,  for  aught  we 
know,  might  hear  a  sermon  to  their  everlasting 
advantage. 

An  objection,  I  am   aware,  may  also  be  offered 


SABBATH    PISCUSSIOX.  275 

against  the  usage  founded  upon  the  belief  that  the 
Lord's  day  begins  and  ends  at  midnight.  According 
to  this  belief,  the  day  of  our  Lord's  resurrection  be- 
gins and  ends  whea  mankind,  with  few  exceptions, 
are  asleep  ;  but  it  should  be  recollected  that  so  oc- 
curred hiS' resurrection  itself;  few  were  then  awake, 
none  of  the  disciples  saw  him  rise,  but  they  saw  him 
afterward  by  the  light  of  the  sun  ;  and  so  do  all  be- 
lievers see  him  as  risen  by  the  light  of  the  Gospel. 
It  is  to  be  believed,  too,  that  Christians,  generally 
speaking,  awake  on  Lord's  day  morning  with  recol- 
lections appropriate  to  the  day  ;  and  that  the  means, 
private  and  public,  in  which  they  are  employed  dur- 
ing the  day,  are  such  as  happily  serve  to  keep  such 
recollections  in  their  minds  till  they  retire  at  night. 
Nor  do  I  doubt  that  respect  for  the  belief  and  usage 
thus  imperfectly  advocated,  has  occasioned  most  of 
the  civilized  nations  (  including  our  own  )  to  begin 
and  end  their  civil  day  at  midnight.  And,  indeed, 
when  it  is  recollected,  that  God  required  Israel,  as  a 
memorial  of  their  redemption  out  of  Egypt,  thence- 
forward to  begin  the  year,  at  least  in  regard  to  sacred 
festivities,  six  montks  later,  to  wit,  with  Ahib  (  after- 
ward called  Nisan,  )  instead  of  Tisri,  what  wonder 
that,  to  commemorate  the  so  much  greater  work  of 
redemption  by  Christ,  we  should  be  instructed,  in  con- 
formity to' the  time  of  his  resurrection,  to  begin  the 
day,  sacred  and  civil,  six  /lours  later,  that  is,  at  mid- 
night instead  of  at  sunset.  Sea  Kxo.  xii.  2,  29,  3L 
Compare  John  xx.  19.      To  proceed. 

The  use  j-ou  make  of  Dan.  ix.  27,  is  singular  in- 
deed. To  give  my  views  at  large  of  this  prophecy, 
would  be  foreign  to  the  object  of  these  letters  :  yet, 
as  serving  to  shov/  the  ab.su rdity  of  your  application 
of  it,  a  few  things  must  be  noticed.  1.  Then,  the 
seventy  weeks  mentioned  in  verse  twenty-four,  are  all 


276  SABBATH     DISCUSSION. 

to  be  undei'stood  of  prophetic  weeks  ;  that  is,  weeks 
of  years  ;  making  seventy  times  seven,  or  four  hun- 
dred and  ninety  years.  Hence,  when  the  prophet 
afterward  had  occasion  to  mention  ordinary  weeks, 
lo  distinguish  them  from  the  weeks  in  question,  he 
called  them  shavugneem  yameem,  weeks  of  days. 
Chapter  x.  2.  And  Isaiah,  to  distinguish  a  natural 
from  a  prophetical  year,  calls  it  "  the  year  of  an 
hireling.  ''  is.  xvi.  14  ;  xxi.  16.  2.  Although  the 
seventy  weeks  or  four  hundred  and  ninety  years,  to 
determine  more  minutely  the  succession  and  distinc- 
tion of  the  times  and  events  which  they  embraced, 
were  cut  out  into  three  sections  ;  to  wit,  7  weeks, 
'^  49  years,  )  62  weeks,  (  434  years,  )  and  1  week, 
(  7  years,  )  the  kind,  nevertheless,  of  all  the  seventy 
weeks  remained  the  same  ;  they  were  still  all  iceeks 
of  years.  3.  Chatzi,  the  word  rendered  the  midst, 
being  iVom  chatsah,  to  divide,  more  properly  and  fre- 
quently denotes  half,  and,  in  this  instance,  evidently 
the  latter  half  Accordingly,  Prideaux  understood 
the  single  week,  the  last  of  the  seventy,  to  be  equally 
divided  between  the  ministry  of  John  and  that  of 
Christ,  assigning  to  each  three  and  a  half  years  ; 
and  hence,  that  during  the  latter  half  of  this  week  of 
seven  years,  Christ,  doctrinally,  by  his  preaching 
during  that  time,  and  virtually,  by  his  sacrifice  at  the 
end  of  that  time,  "caused  the  Mosaic  sacrifice  and 
oblation  to  cease.  *'  But  Bp.  Lloyd,  and  after  him 
Bp.  Lowth  and  Dr.  Gill,  understanding  the  seventy 
weeks  to  have  begun  in  the  twentieth  year  of  Artax- 
crxes  hongimanus,  when  he  gave  authority  to  Nehe- 
miak  to  rebuild  the  wall  of  Jerusalem.  Neh.  ii.  1  — 
8  ;  and  calculating  the  490  years  after  the  oriental 
usage,  allowing  only  360  days  to  each,  make  the  62 
weeks,  as  following  the  seven,  to  end  with  the  33d 
year  of  Christ ;  which  was  at  the  feast  of  tabernacles, 


SABBATH     DISCUSSION.  277 

in  ^risrif  after  which,  that  is,  six  months  after  th© 
expiratiuQ  o[  the  02  weeks,  '*  the  Messiah  was  cut 
off,  "  according  to  verse  26.  Then,  ieaving  a  spacQ 
of  30  years  tor.  the  turther  calling  and  repentance  of 
the  Jews,  the  last,  the  single,  the  separated  week  of 
the  70,  must  have  commenced  at  the  end  of  A.  D.  63, 
and,  including,  (  like  each  of  the  rest,  )  seven  years, 
it  must  have  extended  to  A,  D.  70  ;  wtien  the  Prince 
Messiah,  (by  "  the  peopleof  the  prince,'^  meaning  the 
army  of  Vespasian  or  Titus,  the  prince  of  the  Ro- 
mans,) came  and  destroyed  "  the  city''  (Jerusalem) 
*'  and  the  sanctuary,'''  (the  temple,)  and  so  "caused 
t\\o  sacrifice  and  tiie  oblation,  offered  there,  actually 
and  totally  to  cease.  "  With  this  1  concur;  believ- 
ing that  the  prince  of  whom  the  angel  [verse  27] 
said,  he  shall  conhrm  the  covenant  with  many  for 
one  week,"  is  not  meant  the  Messiah  ;  for  when 
He,  by  his  death,  confirmed  the  covenant  of  grace 
for  his  people,  it  wixs  forever,  and  not  for  a  week  or 
7  years  only  ;  but  Vespasian,  the  prince,  the  Em- 
peror of  the  Romans,  who,  by  his  general  Corbulo, 
made  and  confirmed  a  covenant  of  civil  peace,  for 
seven  years,  with  the  Parlhians,  Medes,  and  Arme- 
nlans,  that  he  might  be  the  more  at  leisure  to  make 
an  entire  conquest  of  Judea.  Accordingly,  Tacitusy 
the  Roman  historian,  writing  of  those  times,  saya 
Tiiere  nzcer  loas  so  firm  a  p3ace  as  now,  Annal.  L.  xv* 

April  29,  1836. 
The  reason  you  assign  for  not  believing  that  Christ 
ate  his  last  passover  With  his  disciples  before  the  time 
the  Jews  statedly  ate  theirs,  is  the  sams  that  I  for- 
merly employed  for  the  same  purpose  ;  namely,  that 
he  inust  then  not  have  complied  with  the  law  in  Lev. 
xxiii.  5.  But  when  1  come  duly  to  consider  the  ob- 
vious fact,  that  the  passover  was  a  specified  type  of 

R 


279  SABBATH    DlSCVSSWlSt. 

Christ,  and  that  he  was  then  about  to  abolish  it  111 
his  death,  (  I  Cor.  v.  7.)  I  found  the  supposed  reason 
to  be  no  reason  /  and  the  difFrculty  which  it  had  oc- 
casioned, in  a  moiTient  vanished.  This,  too,  might 
be  the  tru3  reason  why,  so  far  as  1  can  see,  Christ 
did  not  present  the  usual  sacrifices,  datli/  and  weekly, 
which  the  law  required  ;  they  were  all  types  of  him- 
self, and  to  be  abolished  in  him.  (  f  f  Cor.  lii.  IS",  14. 
Heb.  X.  11 — 14.)  One  thing  m  relation  to  this  mat- 
ter is  certain  ;  to  wit,  that  if  Christ,  that  year,  observ- 
ed the  passover  at  the  legal  time,  the  Jews  had  either 
lost  the  knowledge  of  the  true  time,  or  had  changed 
it  ;  for  we  know  that  he  ate  the  passover  wiih  his 
disciples,  the  night  before  the  day  on  which  he  was 
crucified  ;  but  the  day  of  his  crucifixion  was  the  day 
of  "  the  preparation  of  tlie  passover.''  (John  xix. 
14  ;)and  when  the  Jews  caret'ully  avoided  ceremoni- 
al uncleanness,  "  that  they  might  eat  the  passover.  " 
(John  xviii.  28.)  The  interpretation  which  I  gave  of 
Mark  xiv.  12,  and  Luke  xxii.  7,  (and  of  which  you 
take  no  notice,)  shows  tliat  even  those  passages,  right- 
ly understood,  do  not,  aslonce  thought  I  did,  stand 
in  the  way  of  the  supposed  anticipation. 

Your  quotation  from  Dr.  Adam  Cf'ark^  on  this  ar- 
ticle, does  him  great  injustice  ;  for  though  you  cite 
words  that  he  used,  you  pervert  his  meaning,  by  sup- 
pressing his  connection.  He  was  comparing  differ- 
ent opinions  :  and,  having  rejected  two,  one  of  which 
denied  that  Christ  ate  the  passover  that  year  at  all, 
and  having  mentioned  another,  he  says,  "  this  third 
opinion,  which  states  that  Christ  did  eat  the  passo- 
ver with  his  disciples  that  year,  but  not  in  the  same 
hour  with  the  Jews  ;  and  that  he  expired  on  the  cross 
the  same  hour  in  which  the  paschal  lamb  was  killed, 
seems  the  inost  'prohahle.''^  Again,  he  says  "  Our 
Lord  and  he   disciples   ate  the  passover  some   hours 


SABBATH    DISCUSSION.  279 

before  the  Jews  ate  theirs  ;  for  they,  according  to 
custom,  ate  theirs  at  the  end  of  the  fourteenth  day^ 
but  Christ  appears  to  have  eaten  his  the  preceding 
evening  which  was  the  beginning  of  the  same  day, 
and  which  v/as  the  sixth  day  of  the  week,  or  Friday  ; 
for  the  Jews  begin  their  day  at  sunsetting  :  we  at 
midnight.  Thus  (continues  he)  Christ  ate  the  pass- 
over  the  same  day  with  the  Jews,  but  not  in  the  same 
hour.  Christ,  therefore,  (as  our  author  adds,)  kept  the 
passover  the  beginning  of  the  fourteenth  day,  the  pre- 
cise day  in  which  the  Jews  had  eaten  their  first  pass- 
over  in  Egypt  :  see  Exo.  .\ii.  6—12.'' 

Godwin,  it  is  true,  in  his  Moses  and  Aaron,  p.  138, 
says  what  authorised  the  words  of  Carloic  which  you 
cite  ;  but  turning  to  Godwin's  book,  1  find  in  p.  142, 
that  when,  lilte  Clarke,  he  had  rejected  other  opinions, 
he  says,  *'  Lastly,  others  more  probably  hold  that 
both  Christ  and  the  Jews  did  eat  the  passover  the  same 
day  and  hour;  namely,  on  Friday,  or  the  fourteenth 
day  of  the  montli,  if  we  count  the  beginning  of  Fri- 
day according  to  the  mnnner  of  the  Jews,  from  six  o'- 
clock at  night  on  Thursday.''  Thus  he  clearly  shows 
what  he  meant  ;  to  wit,  that  both  Christ  and  the  Jews, 
at  least  that  year,  ate  the  passover  on  the  evening  of 
Thursday,  the  13th  o'i  Nisan,  when  (in  Jewish  calcula- 
tions) Friday,  the  14th  of  Nisan,  had  commenced  ;  for 
he  adds,  "  Friday  morning  he  [Christ]  was  judged  and 
crucified  ;  and  inthe  afternoon,  about  three  o^clock, 
parnskeue  the  preparation^  of  the  Sabbath  began,  he 
(having  given  up  the  Ghost  on  the  cross)  was  buried  : 
There  laid  they  Jesus,  because  of  the  Jeivs  prepara- 
tion.'^ (John  xix.  42;  comp.  Mark  xv.  42 — 47,  and 
Luke  xxiii.  54.)  Bp.  Lloyd  also,  as  quoted  and  ap- 
proved by  Bp.  Lowth,  says,  "  He  [Christ]  died  in 
the  month  JSisun,  the  very  same  day  and  hour  that 
the  paschal  lamb  was  wont  to  be  killed  ;  "  and,  by  way 
r2 


''iBO  SABBATH    DISCUSSIONT. 

of  demonstrating  the  fact,    Lowth    refers   to  LloycFs 
Chronological  Tables.      See  Lowth  on  Dan.  ix.   25. 

I  now  proceed  to  your  last  letter,  publishad  Jan.  1 
and  8,  1830.  In  this,  the  first  and  principal  thing 
which  claims  my  notice,  is  your  attempt  to  idvaiidatc 
the  testimony  1  adduce  from  Ignntius  and  Justin 
M'/rlijr^  in  favor  of  observing  the  first  day  of  the 
week.  I  attach  as  little  imj)ortance  to  the  theologi- 
cal dogmas  of  those  men  commonly  called  the  futh- 
ers,  as  you  do,  or  as  any  other  Christian  does.  I 
am  also  well  aware,  that  before  the  art  of  printing  was 
in  use,  manuscripts  were  sometimes  interpolated,  both 
l)y  Jews  and  by  Papists.  But  I  quoted  from  Ignatius 
.nnd  Martyr  only  such  of  their  sayings  as  have  been 
quoted  in  past  centuries  by  Protestant  writers,  whose 
times,  learning,  and  diligence  enable  them  to  judge 
between  what  is  genuine  and  what  is  spurious, 
much  better  than  you  or  1  can.  Besides,  I  have  as 
much  reason  to  suspect  that  what  you  quote  from 
them  was  interpolated  by  Jiidaizers,  as  you  have 
to  suspect  that  what  I  quote  from  them,  was  inter- 
polated by  papctJizcrs.  The  obvious  reason  why 
(gnatiiis  said,  "  Let  us  no  longer  ^sabbatize,  '^  was 
that  Christians  remained  tinctured  with  Judaism  ; 
and  he  added,  "  but  let  us  keep  the  day  on  which 
our  LIFE  rose  from  the  dcad.''^  because  he  perceived 
hat  this  day  was  sadiy  neglected,  or  only  partially 
^^'oserved.  But  I  will  give  you  an  authority  whicli 
so  far  as  I  know  has  hitherto  escaped  the  imputation 
61  being  interpolated  ;  I  mean  Eusebius  surnamed 
Pamphylus,  the  first  ecclesiastical  historian  after  the 
apostles.  My  copy  of  this  History  in  folio,  is  very 
!?incient,  and  highly  commended  ;  but  of  what  edition 
it  is  I  cannot  say,  its  title  page  being  worn  ofT. — 
Even  Eusebius  (though  his  work  reterred  to  was 
published   as  early  as  a.   d.   326,   and  contains   the 


SABBATH    DISCUSSION,  '       281 

Vistory  of  the  Christian  Church  from  the  birth  of 
Christ  to  that  time,)  had  to  discuss  the  question  which 
tie  found  to  have  arisen  between  the  eastern  and 
western  Churches,  about  the  observance  of  easier, 
a  Saxon  name  signifying  the  feast,  that  is,  the  pass- 
over  ;  from  which  it  a[)i)cars  that  the  former  were 
jiulaiziiig  and  the  latter  innovating.  He  says,  **  all 
the  Churches  throughout- A5?«,  as  of  an  ancient  tra- 
dition, thought  good  to  observe  the  high  feast  of  eas- 
ier in  the  fourteenth  [of  the]  moon,  on  which  day 
the  Jews  were  commanded  to  offer  their  paschal  Iamb. 
As  much  as  to  say,  as  upon  what  day  soever  in  the 
week  that  [  day  of  the  ]  moon  fell,  the  fasting  days,  " 
(  those  which  they  observed  preparatory  to  the  feast,  ) 
"  linished  and  ended  :  when,  as  the  other  Churches 
throughout  the  world  accustomed  not  to  celebrate 
easier  after  this  manner,  but  observed  the  aposfoJic 
tradition  and  custom  as  yet  retained  ;  to  wit,  that  the 
fasting  days  should  be  broken  up  on  no  other  day 
.but  the  day  wherein  our  Saviour  rose  from  death  to 
life.  Wherefore  synods  and  meetings  of  bishop** 
were  summoned,  where  all  with  one  accord  ordained 
an  ecclesiastical  decree?,  which  they  published  by  their 
.epistles  to  all  Churches  ;  that  upon  no  other  than  the 
Sunday  the  mystery  of  our  Saviour's  resurrection 
should  be  celebrated.  '^  He  also  further  relates,  that 
at  Rome,  at  Ponttis,  throughout  Fra.nce,  and  through- 
out Ostroena,  similar  synods  were  convened,  and  that 
all,  with  one  and  the  same  sentence  and  judgment, 
ordained  the  same  decree,  and  their  uniform  assent 
was  thus  made  manifest  unto  the  v/orld. ''  This  oc- 
curred in  A.  D.  190.  Eus.  Eccl.  Hist.  Lib.  5.  cap. 
xxi  ;  corresponding  to^the  Greek  of  Keph.  23.  This 
ancient  scrap  shows  indeed,  that  Christianity  theri  was 
still  much  shackled  by  Judaism,  and  that  it  was 
^0:eady  ^reaify  imbued  with  that  spirit  of  antichrist 


288  SABBATH    DISCUSSION 

which  even  in  the  apostolic  age  had  '*  hogun  to  work  :^ 
(II  Thes.  ii.  7  ;  )  nevertheless,  it  also  clearly  evinces, 
—  1.  That  the  Christians,  at  that  time,  were  univer- 
sally agreed  that  the  first  day  of  the  week,  called 
Sunday,  was  the  day  in  which  Christ  arose.  2.  That, 
by  "  apostolic  tradition  and  custom,  "  they  regarded 
and  observed  it  as  being  the  most  sacred  of  all  days. 
And,  3.  That  on  that  day,  and  on  no  other,  they 
deemed  it  lawful  to  "  celebyate  the  inystery  of  our 
Saviour's  resurrection  ;"  that  is,  to  receive  "  the 
Lord's  Supper,  "  a&  a  memorial  of  his  vicarious  death, 
the  acceptance  of  v/hich  as  a  satisfactory  atonement 
to  divine  justice  for  all  the  sins  of  all  he  represented, 
was  openly  acknowledged  in  his  authorized  resurrec- 
tion. See  Is.  liii.  11.  Matt.  i.  21.  Acts  xx.  2B. 
Rom.  iii.  25,  26  ;  iv.  25.  Titus  ii.  14.  Heb.  x.  14. 
I  Pet.  iii.  18. 

I  shall  conclude  with  a  brief  notice  of  several  things 
which  incidentally  occurred  in  your  letters  ;  chiefly 
in  that  of  February  27,  1835.  In  this  you  say, 
*'  when  the  Sabbath  was  instituted,  sin  had  not  come 
into  the  world  ;  and,  therefore,  that  it  (  meaning  the 
Sabbath,  )  did  not  originate  in  the  grace  of  God  to 
sinners,  nor  could  it  be  affected  by  that  plan  of 
grace  revealed  and  compleatcd  in  Christ.  "  But, 
surely,  you  believe  that  God^s  purpose  of  grace  in 
Christ  was  before  the  sabbatic  institution,  and  before 
the  creation  of  the  world.  If  so,  your  remark  is  idle. 
See  Eph.  i.  3 — 5  ;  II  Tim-,  i.  9  ;  and  Titus  i.  2.  In 
the  same  letter,  you  say  of  the  Sabbath,  "it  was  a 
symbol  of  the  felicity  of  heaven,  to  which  men  would 
undoubtedly  have  been  ultimately  exalted,  had  they 
remained  innocent.  '^  That  the  sabbatic  rest  was  a 
.symbol  of  heaven,  I  do  not  question  ;  but  that  men^ 
had  they  remained  innocent,  would  have  been  exalted 
to  heaven,   by  their    natural    innoceace,   I    see   no 


SABBATH      DISCUSSION.  283 

scriptural    evidence.      They    would    have    remained 
happy  in   the   state  of   iimocent  Adam,  hut   had    no 
proiiiise  of  heaveri ;  for  this,  as  well  as  the  promise  of  it, 
comes  only  through   the  Mediator,  the  second  Adam, 
*'  the    Lord    of    heaven.  "      The    beavenly   state   is, 
«*that  eternal  life,  which  God,  that  cannot  lie,  prom- 
ised oeiore  the  v/orid  began  ;  '"'   vvhich  promise,  there- 
fore, could  not  tiwii  have  been  made  to  any  creature, 
—  oat  was  made  to  Christ,  as   the  covenantee   and 
suRc:Tir   of  God's   elect.      Titus  i.  2.     Accordingly, 
*'  eternal  life  is  l\\e  gij't  of  God,  ihrough  Jesus  Christ 
our  Liord.      Kom.  vj.  24,      Between  your  expression 
of  the  two  sentiments  just  noticed,  you  say,  "  we  have 
as  iiitie  interest  in  the  continuance  of  Jewish  rites  as 
yourself,   although   we  may  not  have  indulged    in  so 
much  acrimony  against  thom.  "      I  have  said  nothing 
a^xiust  Jewisk  rites  as   divine   institutions  ;   nay,  as 
such,  1   higldy  venerate  them  and  their  appropriate 
uses,  and  have  said  and  written  much  to  sustain  them, 
as  also  to  explain  their  typical  design  ;  but  as  con- 
tinued under  the  same  or  other  names,  since  realized 
and  abolished  in  Christ,  I  cannot,  I   must  7iot  endure 
them  :   for,  so  continued,  they  ate  abhorred  of  God  ; 
(  Is.  Ixvi.  3  ;  )  and  the  apostle  calls  them  "  weak  and 
beggarly  elements,  "  and  speaks  very  reproachfully 
of  judaizing  teachers  ;  calling  them  dogs,  and  evil- 
ivorkers ;  such  as  would  trouble  the  Church,    *'and 
pervert  the  Gospel  of  Christ  ;  "   nay,  said  of  them, 
»*  1  would  that  they  were  even  cut  off,  ''  at  least  from 
the  Church,  if  not  from  the  earth.      See  Gal.   iv.  9  ; 
V.  12.      Phil.  iii.  2.      In   your    letter  of  October   16, 
1835,  while  endeavoring  to  extricate  yourself  from 
your  strange  allegation  that  Brown  and  Lighffoot  as- 
sign the  ascension  and  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost  to  the 
seventh  day,  you  would   have  your  readers  believe 
that  Brown,  ( in  vol.  i.  p.  444,  )  actually  agrees  with 


284 


SABBATH     DISCUSSION. 


you  ;  whereas  you  very  well  know  that  his  agree- 
ment with  you  is  only  in  beginning  the  weekly  day 
of  sacred  rest  at  sunset  :  he  on  Saturday  evening, 
and  you  on  Friday  evening.  For  afterward,  (  p.  446,) 
he  expressly  says,  "  that  the  particular  day  on  which 
the  Holy  Ghost  descended  was  the  Christian  Sab- 
bath ;  "  adding.  ''  thus  an  additional  honor  was  put 
by  the  Trinity  on  that  holy  day.  ''  I  am  glad,  how- 
ever, that  you  could  defend  your  unhappy  ueciaration 
even  as  well  as  you  did. 

But  I  must  not  forget  to  account  for  what,  in  yo'ur 
second  letter,  you  notice  as  a  mistake  in  my  first  let- 
ter, wherein  I  referred  to  Josephus,  (  lib.  7,"^c.  9,  )  for 
proof  that  the  Jews  called  a  week  eight  days  ;  the 
place  intended  may  be  found  in  chap,  viii,  sec.  5,  of 
that  book.  Whether  Josephus  was  right  in  supposing, 
as  he  seems  to  have  done,  that  "  Absalom's  head, 
after  the  week's  end,  v/as  polled  every  eight  day,  -' 
does  not  affect  the  object  of  my  reference.  Our  trans- 
lation says  it  was  done  **  at  every  year's  end  ;  "  but 
the  Hebrew  is,  mikketz  yameem  laynmeem,  from  the 
end  of  day&,  fa  days^  II  Sam.  xiv.  26.  Whether  it 
ineans  when  the  days  of  som.e  natural  division  of 
time,  or  of  some  stated  period  ended ;  or  simply, 
every  return  of  the  time  when  the  polling  was  needed, 
is  immaterial  to  my  object  ;  which  is  only  to  prove 
that  Josej)hus,  by  "every  eighth  day,  "  noted  the  be- 
ginning of  every  week,  which  was  equivalent  to 
noting  a  week,  as  an  evangelist  did,  by  the  phrase, 
*'  about  an  eight  days.  "  Luke  ix.  28.  '  Thus,  when 
the  sacrifices  appropriate  to  Gospel  times  are  pro- 
phetically mentioned,  they  are  said  to  be  offered  on 
the  eighth  day,  this  being  the  day  after  the  Jewish 
Sabbath,  and,  therefore,  the  frst  day  of  the  week, 
called  the  Lord^s  day.  Rev.  i.  10.  See  Ezek.  xliii. 
^7,     Compare  Is.  Ivi.  7  ;  and   theri  read  the  fylfiU^ 


SABBATH     DISCUSSION.  285 

ment  of  the  prediction,  (  both  as  to  the  allar  and  the 
sacntices,  )  m  iieb.  xiii.  10,  15,  16  ;  and  I  Pet.  ii.  ^. 

\our  comparison  between  calling  the  seventh  day 
the  JeiDisli  teabbalh,  and  the  first  day  the  Romish 
ISabbath,  is  unjust.  You  know  that,  during  the  Mo- 
saic dispensation,  the  scriptural  observance  of  the 
seventh  day  was  peculiar  to  the  Jews  and  those  prose- 
lyted to  their  leiigion  ;  but  you  will  scarcely  say  that, 
under  the  Christian  dispensation,  the  vvcekly  observ- 
ance of  the  first  day  is  peculiar  to  jj-'pists.  Besides, 
the  observance  of  the  fiirst  d/y,  sanctioned  by  the 
marvelous  descent  of  the  Spirit  on  that  day,  was 
practiced  by  the  apostles  and  primitive  Christians,  be- 
fore Romanism,  under  the  name  of  Christianity,  had 
any  being.  Moreover,  I  have  proved  that  the  word 
S  'bhath  was  never  used  in  Scripture  till  at  the  giv- 
ing of  the  manna,  nor  afterward,  but  as  denoting 
either  the  weekly  or  some  other  Sabbath  peculiar  to 
the  Jews.  See  my  letter  of  October  2,  163.3.  A 
scriptural  tenet,  remember,  does  not  become  unscrip- 
turai  because  the  p  ipists  hold  it,  or  the  doctrine  of 
the  divine  Trinity  must  be  so. 

All  the  reasons  you  assign  as  evidential  of  sin- 
cerity, I  readily  admit  ;  and,  could  I  believe  that 
Sabbatarians  are  right,  their  paucity  would  be  no  ob- 
jection to  my  becoming  a  candidate  for  union  with 
them.  Popularity  is  a  matter  of  very  small  consi- 
deration with  me.  But  be  assured,  my  brother,  that 
the  more  I  investigate  the  subject,  and  consider  the 
question  on  both  sides,  the  more  1  am  established  in 
my  belief  that  the  blessed  Redeemer  rose  from  the 
dead  on  the  jirst  day  of  the  week,  and  that,  for  this 
reason  chiefly,  "  the  same  day  '"'  should  be  weekly 
observed  as  a  day  of  sacred  rest  and  of  grateful  devo- 
tion. 

Having  written  thus  much  to  explain   and  defend 


286  SABBATH    DISCUSSION. 

my  conscientious  belief  and  practice,  in  regard  both 
to  the  Saf'hath  and  to  the  Jii'st  day  of  the  week,  called 
**the  Lord's  day,  *'  I  leave  you,  my  brother,  and  ail 
who  think  with  you,  to  enjoy  your  supposed  proofs  of 
the  contrary,  with  all  your  correspondent  conclusioas 
undisturbed  ;  not  intending  to  notice  any  thing  you 
may  further  say  on  the  subject.  For,  having  several 
unfinished  works  on  hand,  and  "  knowing  that  shortly 
I  must  put  off  this  my  tabernacle,'"'  I  have  neilher 
time  nor  inclination  to  prolong  this  discussion.  Thus 
impressed,  I  now  bid  you  and  your  Christian  frater- 
nity a  cordi  d  fareicell  ;  hoping  ere  long  to  meet  you 
and  all  who  "have  received  an  unction  tVom  the  Holy 
One,''  in  the  true  and  everlasting  rest  that  remainefh 
for  the  ycojple  of  God. 
Yours  in  the  Lord, 

WM.  PARKINSON,  Pastor  of  the 

1st  Bap.  Ch.,  city  of  N.  Y. 


ELDER  MAXSON's  LAST  SERIES  OF  LETTERS. 


LETTER  XXV. 


To  THE  Rkv.  W.  Parkinson. 

Dear  Brother, — 1  have  received,  and  repeatedly 
perused  your  second  series  of  letters  in  reply  to  mine 
addressed  to  you,  relative  to  the  weekly  Sabbath  ;  and 
they  would  have  received  an  earlier  acknowledgment, 
had  not  other  engagements  absolutely  prevented. — 
And  I  now  assure  you,  that  it  is  not  by  a  desire  to 
have  the  last  word  in  this  discussion,  that  I  am  led  to 
this  reply  ;  for  I  am  a^vare  that  the  patience  of  our 
readers,  as  well  as  the  liberality,  of  our  brother,  the 
editor,  has  been  put  to  a  serious  test.  But  a  sense  of 
duty  to  myself,  and  to  the  truth  I  have  endeavored  to 
maintain,  together  with  the  desire  that  we  may  leave 
the  field  of  controversy  fully  apprized  of  each  others 
views  of  this  subject,  and  ( 1  should  be  glad  to  hope  ) 
with  feelings  becoming  our  profession,  constrain  me 
to  ask  a  little  farther  indulgence. 

In  this  reply,  it  is  not  so  much  my  design  to  notice 
the  very  unkind  and  sarcastic  manner  in  which  you 
have  animadverted  upon  my  letters,  which  you  admit 
to  have  been  *'  respectfully  written,"  as  to  correct  the 
numerous  misconstructions  you  have  put  upon  them. 
If  the  support  of  my  views  by  Scripture  is  a  mere  pre- 
tense, and  my  arguments  are  so  obviously  weak,  that 


288 


SABBATH     DISCUSSION- 


ihej  may  only  seem  to  some  few  conscientious  per- 
sons, to  be  solid  and  conclusive,  as  you  have  represen- 
ted them  ;  (March  11  ;  )  it  must  be  allowed  that  you 
have  bestowed  much  gratuitous  labor  in  confronting' 
them.  Let  them  be  understood  as  I  have  expressed 
them,  and  I  am  quite  Vvilling  the  reader  should  decide 
as  to  their  merits. 

The  first  things  I  wish  particularly  to  notice,  is 
your  labored  effort  to  draw  out  of  what  I  had  written  ; 
an  undesigned  admission  that  the  seventh  day  recogni- 
zed by  the  fourth  commandment,  was  abolished. — 
Were  it  true  that  I  had  used  terms  im]:)lying  more 
than  it  was  apparent  I  designed  they  should,  1  ask,  Sir, 
is  it  an  act  of  Christian  kindness  to  force  these  words 
to  misrepresent  what  you  know  I  designed  to  ex- 
press ?  When  I  stated  (  Nov.  13  )  that  whatever 
there  was  in  the  Sabbath  peculiar  to  the  Jews,  or  the 
Mosaic  dispensation  was  abolished  —  that  as  these 
l^eculiarities  constituted  it  to  that  people,  the  Jewish 
Sabbath  :  so  when  these  peculiarities  were  abolished, 
the  Jewish  Sal:>bath  was  abolished  ;  but  that  the 
patriarchal  Sabbath,  which  was  the  same  with  the 
original  institution,  and  written  in  the  fourth  command- 
ment, remained  :  —  I  say  when  I  made  this  statement, 
it  ^vas  in  vie^v  or  your  own  avo\ved  o})inion  as  to  what 
constituted  the  seventh  day,  the  Jeivish  Sahbath,  (July 
17,  1835,)  namely,  "  When  I  contend  that  the  Sabr 
bath  of  the  fourth  commandment  was  peculiar  to  the 
Jew's,  I  mean  that  it  was  so  in  regard  to  the  manner  of 
its  observance,  &c.  "  And  also  with  a  full  explanation 
of  my  meaning  when  I  used  the  phrase  Jcivish  Sabr 
hath,  see  my  letter  (  Nov.  6,  1835)  one  week  earlier 
than  the  date  you  quote.  I  then  stated  to  you,  that  I 
miderstoodby  your  letter  of  July  17,  that  by  the  obser- 
vance of  the  seventh  day,  you  had  only  intended  the 
peculiar  manner  which  the  Jews  were  required  to  ob- 


SABBATH    DISCUSSION.  ,  289* 

serve  it.  And  you  permitted  me  to  remain  in  the  lie- 
lief  that  you  intended  to  he  so  understood.  Nqw,  with 
all  this  explanation  made  in  connection  Avith  the  avG\\'- 
al  of  my  opinion  that  the  Jewish  SaLbath  was  abolish- 
ed, no  person  can,  in  candor,  say  that  I  have  virtuallv 
admitted  the  abrogation  of  the  fourth  commandment. 
Again.  You  represent  me  as  saying  that  the  sabbat- 
ic law  given  to  the  Jews  embraced  no  new  prohibitions 
and  enjoined  no  new  duties.  (Feb.  26.  )  If  you  mean 
that  I  have  said  this  in  reference  to  any  la\v  given  to 
them  other  than  what  is  recorded  in  the  fourth  com- 
mandment, Exo.  XX.  8 — 11,  I  sho-uld  consider  it  un- 
just ;  for  my  words  (Oct.  23)  are  expreressly  limited 
to  this  precept.  And  I  say  the  same  now,  that  this 
law  as  recorded  in  Exo.  xx.  8 — ^11,  enjoins  nothinf'- 
but  what  is  implied  in  the  record  of  Gen.  ii.  2,  3,  and 
is  fairly  inferable  therefrom.  Nor  have  you  attempt- 
ed to  make  a  distinction,  without  associating  wnth  the 
precept,  the  insti'ucdons  and  penalty  subsequently  re- 
vealed to  Israel,  which  you  well  know  I  have  vicnved 
as  distinct  from  the  law  of  the  fourth  commandment. 
Why  then  should  you  ask,  "  What  then  was  abolish- 
ed 1  "  TJiis  inquiry  has  been  rej^eatedly  answered  in 
my  former  letters  to  you  ;  and  I  will  now  once  foi*  all 
say,  that  all  the  sabbatic  service  of  the  temple  and  svn- 
agogue  worship,  peculiar  to  that  dispensation — -the 
particular  restrictions  to  that  people,  relative  to  o'oing 
out  of  their  houses,  gathering  of  sticks,  kindlino- of  fires, 
stonlng-to-Jaath,  &c.,  with  whatever  else  relative  to 
the  Sabbath  there  may  have  been,  not  implied  in  the 
fourth  commandment,  were  unquestionably  abolished. 
But  it  has  been  shown,  and  any  person  who  will  lake 
the  trouble  of  comparing  Exo.  xx.  8  — 11  \vith  Gen.  ii.. 
2,  3,  can  see  that  nothing  vv'as  required  by  the  pre- 
cept that  is  not  plainly  inferred  from  the  record.  If 
anything  could  be  learned  from  he  example  of  God  in 


290  SABBATH     DISCUSSION. 

resting  on  tlie  seventh  day  ;  it  is  this,  namely,  to  imi- 
tate his  rest.  This  you  expressly  admit.  (  Feb.  26, 
1836.)  You  here  say,  "  By  the  record,  Gen.  ii.  2,  3, 
we  certainly  know  that  God  having  finished  his  work 
of  creation  in  six  days,  rested  therefrom  on  the  seventh, 
and  that  he  blessed  the  seventh  day  and  sanctified  it, 
thus  teaching  by  his  example,  that  during  that  day,  man 
should  rest  from  all  servile  labor,  and  be  employed  in 
contemplating  the  works,  and  adoring  the  perfections 
of  his  Creator."  You  have  here  virtually  admitted 
all  I  have  contended  for,  namely,  that  the  record  is  as 
express,  and  as  extensive  in  its  restrictions  and  injunc- 
tions as  the  commandment  is.  Your  denial  that  there 
is  any  command  for  the  sabbatic  observance  in  Gen.  ii. 
2,  3,  avails  nothing  ;  it  is  a  mere  split  about  words  of 
the  same  import.  Nor  is  it  dealing  fairly  with  me  to 
say  as  you  do,  that  according  to  my  own  declaration 
*'the  Jewish  Sabbath  was  abolished  as  to  all  things 
which  the  institution  required  under  the  Mosaic  dis- 
pensation  ;"  for  this  I  never  have  admitted,  and  you 
well  know  that  I  have  constantly  mamtained  that  the 
institution  required,  under  all  dispent^ations,  the  reli- 
gious observance  of  the  seventh  day,  viith  such  reli- 
gious services,  as  God  should  see  fit,  from  time  to  time 
to  enjoin.  It  still  remains  a  duty  you  owe  to  your- 
self, to  ascertain  in  what  consists  the  essential  differ- 
ence between  the  precept  and  the  record.  By  your 
own  statements  you  relieved  me  of  the  labor  of  point- 
ing out  the  diffei-ence  between  the  fourth  command- 
ment and  the  sabbatic  law  of  the  Jews.  In  your  2d 
letter  of  your  first  series,  you  say,  "  according  to  the 
Sabbath  law,  the  Jews  were  forbidden  to  carry  any 
burden  on  the  Sabbath  day  :  yet  he  [Christ]  both  did, 
and  sanctioned  what  was  forbidden  according  to  the 
Sabbath  law."  Again,  (March  11,  1836,)  you  say 
that  "  the  fourth    commandment   indeed    makes    pro- 


SABBATH    DISCUSSION.  291 

vision  for  works,  of  necessity  and  mercy,  and  such  works 
might,  consistently  with  the  sense  of  the  commandment 
be  done  on  the  Sabbath, "  and  add  that  the  labor  which 
Christ  justified  his  disciples  in  doing  was  lawful  on 
the  Sabbath  day.  As  you  have  thus  asserted  a  dif- 
ference between  the  two  laws,  there  need  be  no  more 
words  how  one  could  be  abolished,  and  the  other  re- 
main. You  eftbrts,  still  to  insert  the  Jewish  restric- 
tions and  penalties  in  the  decalogue,  in  my  estimation, 
are  of  no  weight.  Nor  do  I  see  what  good  purpose 
can  be  promoted  by  your  insinutaion,  that  many  Sab- 
batarians are  weekly  guilty  of  Sabbath-breaking.  If 
it  be  really  as  you  suppose,  I  see  not  how  this  can  ei- 
ther help  your  argument,  or  prejudice  mine.  We 
have  reason  to  be  glad,  however,  both  on  our  own  ac- 
count and  on  the  account  of  our  anti-sabbatarian  breth- 
ren, that  there  Is  no  s Zoning  to  bo  done  in  this  case  ;  but 
that  such  wilful  offenders  may  live  to  obtain  forgive- 
ness. 

The  above  explanation  furnishes  an  answer  to  your 
repeated  inquiry  as  to  what  I  mean  when  I  say,  "  the 
Jewish  Sabbatli  is  abolished."  You  take  a  very 
strange  course  in  supposing,  that  by  the  above  assertion, 
I  mean  that  the  ceremonial  appendages  to  the  Sabbath 
only  are  removed,  and  that  I  must  su])pose  the  Gospel 
Church  is  bound  to  observe  the  Sabbath  on  pain  of 
corporeal  death.  This  I  deem  mere  trifling.  In  my 
turn,  I  ask,  what  you  mean  when  you  say,  "  the 
fourth  commandment  makes  provision  for  the  works 
of  necessity  and  mercy,  and  that  such  works  might, 
consistently  with  the  sense  of  the  commandment,  be 
done  on  the  Sabbath  ] "  Your  following  remarks 
about  the  Church  being  under  a  stonlng-to-death  disci- 
pline, are  perfectly  idle.  I  will  also  ask,  what  you 
mean  by  "  believers  not  being  under  the  Law,"  &c. 
If  you  only  intend  by  these  remarks,  that  believers  are 


S92  SABBATH    DISCUSSION. 

not  bound  under  the  penal  curses  of  the  law,  or  to  ob- 
tain salvation  by  the  merits  of  its  works ;  you  contend 
for  what  no  Christian  denies.  But  if  you  mean  that 
believers  are  not  bound  to  obey  the  law  of  the  deca- 
log-ue  as  a  rule  of  duty,  you  had  better  come  out  at 
once  —  pull  down  the  standard  of  Orthodoxy,  and  un- 
furl the  banners  of  Antinomianism.  We  shall  then 
know  what  we  have  to  meet.  Again  you  anticipate 
me  as  saying,  the  Jewish  Sabbath  was  abolished  as  to 
all  things  relating  to  the  sabbatic  institution  that  was 
positive  ;  and  thus,  by  my  avowed  opinion  of  the  pos- 
itive appointment  of  the  seventh  day,  bring  me  into  the 
diltmma  of  admitting  that  it  was  abolished  :  and  to 
avoid  this  dilemma  as  saying,  it  was  abolished  as  to 
all  things  annexed  to  the  institution  by  the  Mosaic  dis- 
pensation, and  thus  virtually  admitting  the  fourth  com^ 
mandment  to  be  abolished.  You  find  it  very  easy  to 
meet  these  objections  you  make  in  my  behalf ;  but  Sir, 
I  have  not  said  nor  do  I  admit  that  all  that  is  positive 
in  the  fourth  commandment  was  abolished  ;  and  con- 
sequently, am  not  brought  into  the  dilemma  you  have 
anticipated.  Nor  would  you  derive  any  advantage 
from  tlie  confession,  \vere  it  made  according  to  your 
wish  ;  since  you  admit  that  the  example  of  God  in 
resting  the  seventh  day,  teaches  man  as  authoritatively 
that  durino;  that  day,  he  should  rest  from  all  survile 
labor,  and  be  employed  in  worshiping  God.  The  du- 
ty still  to  observe  the  Sabbath,  is  as  binding  in  the  one 
case  as  in  the  other. 

Tn  your  your  concurrence  in  the  opinion  that  the 
sabbatic  institution  is  of  a  compound  chai'acter,  that  is, 
that  it  is  both  moral  and  ■positive.  You  say  you 
have  not  intentionally  said  any  thing,  contrary  to  it.— 
I  cannot  say  what  you  have  intended  ;  but  you  have 
stated,  (  Letter  2^  first  scries,)  that  the  Sabbath  law 
in  its  nature,   was   not  moral  but  positive,"  and  "  that 


SABBATH    DISCUSSION.  293 

our  blessed  Lord  placed  a  bi'each  of  the  Sabbath  on  a 
par,  not  with  a  breach  of  mo]'al  law  ;  but  with  a  breach 
of  the  law  by  which  the  Levitical  priesthood  was  in- 
stituted and  j)rivileged,  and  which  was  ceremonial 
and  repealable. "  You  may  say  you  designed  these 
remarks  to  apply  to  the  fourth  commandment.  But  it 
has  been  sho^vn  to  the  satisfaction  of  every  unpre- 
judiced reader,  that  the  institution,  and  the  command- 
ment are  perfectly  similar  in  their  nature,  and  in  the 
duties  they  inculcate.  And  your  remarks  here  cited, 
I  consider  as  pointedly  against  the  morality  of  the 
fourth  commandment  as  they  can  well  be,  and  conse- 
quently as  much  against  the  m.orality  of  the  sabbatic  in- 
stitution. Again,  under  the  same  date  you  assert  that 
I  admit  that  God  if  he  please,  might  direct  to  the  ob- 
servation of  another  day  of  the  week,  instead  of  the 
seventh  in  perfect  harmony  with  the  perpetual  morali- 
ty of  the  institution.  I  am  not  a  little  surjDrized  that 
you  should  tax  me  with  admitting  this,  since  I  stated 
my  opinion  so  explicitly  to  the  contrary.  Under  date 
of  Oct.  16,  I  said,  "  To  me  it  appears  to  be  both  mor- 
al and  jjositive  ;  moral  as  to  the  appointment  of  a 
season  for  rest  and  devotion,  and  positive  in  the  ap- 
pointment of  the  seventh  and  last  day  of  the  week 
for  this  purpose."  But  instituting  the  Sabbath  con- 
sisted in  the  appointment  of  the  seventh  and  last  day 
of  the  ^^^eek  :  to  annul  the  latter,  would  be  to  abro- 
gate the  institution  ;  as  the  reasons  assigned,  for  it 
could  apply  to  no  other  day  than  the  seventh.  God 
could  do  this  if  he  please,  and  if  he  see  fit,  appoint  an- 
other day,  and  assign  other  reasons  for  it;  but  it  would 
be  entirely  another  institution."  I  have  made  this  ex- 
tract at  large,  that  you  may  see  that  I  have  given  you 
no  grounds  for  making  the  assertion  and  I  am  not  re- 
sponsible for  any  of  the  conclusions  you  draw  from  it. 
That  the  Jews  were  under  a  special  obligation  to 


^94  SABBATH    DISCUSSION. 

keep  the  SabLatli  on  account  of  their  national  deliver- 
ence  from  Egypt,  and  their  other  national  blessings,  as 
you  argue,  no  one  ^viil  deny,  and  the  same  special  rea- 
sons   require  that  they  should    observe    every  other 
moral  and  positive  duty  ;  but  aside  from  this  speciality, 
there  was  a  common  reason  why   they,  and     all  other 
men  should  obser^^e  them.      To  this  the  Jewish  author 
Maimonides,  whom  you  quote,  attests.     According  to 
him,  the  first  and  principle  reason  for  the  fourth   com- 
mandment w^as,  that  in  six  days  the  Lord  made    heav- 
en and  earth- ;  but  the  special  reason  urged  upon    the 
Hebrews  was,  that  they   were    servants  in    Egypt. — ■ 
And  you  have  now  virtually  admitted  that  the  Tyrians 
[Gentiles]  were   under  moral  obligation  to    keep  the 
seventh  day.      As  to    my  having    alledged    that  lyou 
maintained  otherwise,   as  you  say  I   have,    must  be  a 
mistake.      I  think  I  have  no  where  said  this.     But  had 
I   alledged    it,   your  remarks  ( 2d    letter,    first   series ) 
world  have  sustained  me.     You  there  cite  the  case  of 
the  Tyrians  as  a.  decisive  proof  that  the  Sabbath  of  the 
fourth  commandment  was  peculiar  to   the  Jews,  and 
say,  "  The    Tyrians   are    represented   as  tempters   of 
the  Je^vs,  by  offering  their  fish  for  sale  on  the  Sabbath  : 
yet  the  Jews  only  v/ere  called  to  account  for  the  breach 
of  the  Sabbath  ;  "   and  add,    "  nor  is   there,  that  I   re- 
collect, a  single  divine  charge  of  Sabbath-breaking  up- 
on sacred  record  before,  or  after  the    Mosaic   disj^en- 
sation."      I  should  understand  this  as   maintaining  that 
the  Tyrians  v,''ere  not  morally  bound  to  keep  the   sev- 
enth day. 

In  the  illustration  of  your  declaration  that  the  au- 
thority for  observing"  the  first  day  is  essentially  the  same 
as  that  by  which  the  seventh  day  was  observed  ;  you 
cannot  conceal  the  difficulty  to  ^vhich  you  are  subject-' 
odj  in  finding  something  for  a  divine  warrant  for  the 
practice.     Among  other  things  you  say    *'  the  Logo& 


SABBATH    DISCUSSION.  295 

[  word  ]  in  delivering  the  law  of  faith  did,  though  not 
verbally  yet  virtually  command  the  observance  of  his 
resurrection  day.  "  And  in  answer  to  the  question, 
Where  ?  you  say,  "  In  his  last  great  commission  for 
preaching  the  Gospel."  When  you  came  so  near  to 
the'proof  of  your  position  as  this,  had  you  quoted  the 
words  in  which  this  virtual  command  M'as  given,  it 
would  have  been  what  I  had  a  right  to  expect  ;  but 
instead  of  this  you  tell  me  that  many  other  things  must 
be  understood  as  enjoined  in  the  commission,  thouo-h 
not  expressed  in  it. "  "  I  feel,  "  you  say,  "  no  hesita- 
tion in  believing  that  the  observance  of  the  Jirsi  day 
of  the  week,  was  likewise  hei-eby  enjoined. "  And 
you  finally  conclude  that  as  Abel  and  Noali  probably 
had  instructions  concerning  the  sacrifices  and  build- 
ing the  ark  which  are  not  recorded  ;  it  is  *'  not  less 
probable  that  Christ,  either  personally,  or  by  his  spir- 
it, gave  some  instructions  to  his  aj^ostles  in  reoard  to 
the  observance  of  his  resurrection  day,  \vhich  are  not 
recorded.  "  Nor  are  your  subsequent  reasons  on  this 
point  of  much  more  weight.  I  think,  brother  Parkin- 
son, you  ought  not  to  blame  me  if  I  involuntarily  smile 
at  such  reasoning  as  this,  for  I  cannot  avoid  it. 

Under  March  11,  after  reciting  from  mine  of  Oct.  16, 
1835,  the  following,  "  The  Scriptures  know  of  no  dis- 
tinction between  moral  and  positive  injunctions  and 
prohibitions,"  you  say  interogatively,  "  surely  you 
cannot  mean  that  the  Scriptures  do  not  contain  positive 
asVell  as  ';/i(?r«Z  injunctions  and  prohibitions."  And 
your  remarks  which  follow  indicate  that  I  intended  to  de- 
ny that  the  Scriptures  contained  positive  duties.  But 
you  must  have  known  that  I  did  not  mean  this  ;  but  that 
the  Scriptures  held  them  both  alike  sacred  ;  as  my  re- 
mirks  there  made,  fully  show.  Your  efforts  to  prove 
that  the  Scriptures  contain  such  precepts  were  alto- 
gether surperfluous.  On  Matt.  v.  18,  19,  you  observe 
s2 


296  SABBATH     DISCUSSION. 

that   I  "  reason,  if  not  unfairly,  at  least  queerly  ;  "  but 
in  your  efforts    to   obscure    my  queer  reasoning,    you 
reason  still  more    queerly.      That  Christ  literally  and 
perfectly  observed  all  the  moral  law    is  certain  ;  and 
also,  that  the  ceremonial  law  was  fulfilled  and  abolish- 
ed in  him  ;  but  the  whole  of  his  sermon  on  the  Mount 
shows  that  his  discourse  did  not  relate   to  himself,  any 
further  than  it  regarded  his  doctrine.     By    the  words 
of  our  Lord,    "  I  came  not  to  destroy  ;  but  to  fulfill," 
he  must  be  understood  in  a  sense  opposed   to   destroy- 
ing the  law  or  the  prophets.       The  words,  therefore, 
cannot  apply  to  th,e  ceremonial  law ;  for  he   did    des- 
troy this  ;   and  there  Vk^as  no  divine  law  then  in  being, 
\vhich  his  disciples  could  understand  him  as  intending, 
but  the  decalogue ;  and  his  illustrations  which  immedi- 
ately follow,  proves  that  he  intended  to  be  so  understood. 
On  jiilerosai,  the  word  which  in  this  place  is  rendered 
'■'  to  fulfill, ''  Mr   Parkhiu\st  observes   that  in  order    to 
make  out  the  connection  between  this,  and  the  two  fol- 
lowing verses,  we  must  take  plerosai  in  its  most   ex- 
tensive sense,  as  denoting  that  Christ   came    not  only 
to  fulfill  the  types  and  prophecies,  by  his  actions  and 
sufferings  ;  but  also  to  perform  perfect  obedience  to  the 
law  of  G-od  in  his  own  person,  and  fully  to  enforce  and 
explain  it  by  his   doctrine."      This    sense   is  given   to 
plerosai  in  Col.  i.  25.     "  According  to  the  dispensation 
of  Grod   which  is  given  unto  me  for  you,  to  fulfill  (ple- 
rosai) the    word    of  God,"  that  is  _/?/ZZ^   to  preach  the 
word   of  God.      The   passage    thus   understood,  pre- 
serves its  close  connection  with  the  preceding  and  fol- 
lowing verses,  and  sustains  my  queer  reasoning  upon  it. 
But  in  your  remarks    upon   this  text,   you  represent 
Christ  as  enforcing  upon  his  disciples,  the  precepts  of 
the  ceremonial  law  —  that  while  it  was  in  force,  they 
should  regard  it  as  the  law  of  God,    and   carefully  ob- 
serve its  precepts,  you  add,  "  Hence   still  addressing 


SABBATH    DIcfCUSSlON*  297 

them,  (  his  disciples,  )  he  said,  "  whosoever  shall  break 
one  of  the  least  of  these  [  ceremonial  ]  commandments 
and  teach  men  so,  (as  if  by  his  order)  he  shall  be  called 
the  least  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  that  is,  among  his 
disciples  them  com.posing  his  visible  kingdom,  which  in 
chapter  xviii.  17,  he  calls  the  Chmxh.  13ut  whosoever 
{  among  his  disciples  )  shall  do  and  teach  them  [  the 
precepts  of  the  ceremonial  law]  shall  be  called  great 
in  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  both  as  it  then  was  and  as 
it  should  become  after  ascension."  It  follows,  accor- 
ding to  this  interpretation,  that  Christ  came  not  to  des- 
troy, that  is  to  abolish  the  ceremonial  law  ;  but  to  con- 
firm, obey,  and  inculcate  it  as  the  law  of  the  Church, 
and  that  till  heaven  and  earth  pass,  not  one  jot,  or 
one  tittle  of  the  ceremonial  law  shall  be  annulled. — 
Now  I  do  not  think  you  believe  tliis  doctrine,  or  that 
you  are  willing  to  abide  by  the  necessary  results  of 
your  comment  upon  this  text.  I  charitably  believe 
that  you  have  been  driven  to  this  interpretation,  by 
your  zeal  in  opposing  my  queer  reasoning. 

I  wish  to  noti<;e  something  further,  but  must  defer  it 
for  a  future  letter.  I  therefore  close,  w4th  my  best 
wishes  for  your  present  and  future  welfare. 

W,  B.  MAXSON. 


LETTER     XXVr. 


To  THE  Rev.   W.   Parkinson. 

Dear  Brother, — Pursuing  the  consideration  of  your 
last  series  of  letters  to  me,  the  next  particular  I  wish 
to  notice,  is,  the  sense  of  the  original  of  sohhaths  in 
Col.  ii.  16.  I  am  satisfied  that  it  is  not  limited  in  the 
New  Testament  to  the  ceremonial  sabbaths.  From 
a  more  particular  examination  into  its  application  in 
its  plural  form,  I  find  it  frequently  applied  to  the 
weekly  Sabbath  ;'  but  not  always,  as  you  have  sup- 
posed, meaning  a  succession  of  weekly  Sabbath-days. 
In  Matt.  xii.  1,  11.  Mark  i.  21  ;  ii^  2a,  24  ;  iii."^2. 
Luke  iv.  16  ;  xiii.  10.  Acts  xiii.  14  ;  xvi.  13  :  we 
find  sahhaths  in  the  genative  or  dative  plural.  By  ex- 
amining these  places,  it  will  be  seen  that  they  cannot 
be  understood  as  intending  a  succession  of  weekly 
sabbaths  ;  nor  can  they  mean  the  Jewish  sabbaths 
collectively  ;  but  a  single  weekly  Sabbath  only.  In 
the  same  sense  we  stould  understand  this  word  in  its 
first  occurrence  in  Matt,  xxviii.  L  This,  therefore, 
relieves  your  interpretation  of  Col.  ii.  16,  of  the  ob- 
jection I  formerly  suggested  ;  namely,  that  sahhaths 
in  the  New  Testament  usually  refer  to  ceremonial 
sabbaths  :  yet  it  by  no  means  confirms  it ;  for  sab- 
baths in  this  text  may  very  properly,  and  without 
tautology,  apply  to   the  ceremonial  sabbaths.     This 


SABBATH     DISCUSSION.  ^99 

will  appear  evident  when  we  consider  that,  in  some 
of  those  feasts,  there  were  both  festive  duties  and  ab- 
stinence from  labor  enjoined.      The  former  made  the 
day  a  feast,  and  the  latter  a  Sabbath.     This  was  the 
case  with  the  feast  of   unleavened    bread,    and   the 
feast  of  tabernacles  ;  Levit.  xxiii.  0,  39  i  each  of  which 
was  held  seven  days  ;  the  first  and  last  days  of  those 
feast  were  sabbaths,  while  the  iiiterveDing  days  were 
feasts  only.     Pentecost  also  was  of  this  class  ;  it  was 
both  a  feast  and  a  Sabbath  ;  veri:e  "1\.     So,  also,  was 
the  feast  of  trumpets,  on  the  first  day  of  the  seventh 
month  ;  verse  28.     All  tliese  were  sabbaths  of  rest, 
as  well  as  feast  days.     Between  these  sabbaths  and 
the  other  days,  wh^ch  were  feasts  only,  there  was  an 
important  distinction  ;  and  this  is  recognized  in  verse 
37,   38,  where  the  feasts  and  ithe  sabbaths  are  dis- 
tinctly mentioned.      There  was  also  a  seven-th  year 
Sabbath  for  the  land  to  lie  untilled,  and  is  so  call- 
ed, Levit.  xxvi.  34,  3.5,  43  ;  and  also  a  fiftieth  year 
jubilee,  Levit.  xxv.  8  — 13,  admitted  to  be  a  Sabbath 
in  your  Summary  :  these  could  not  be  included  in  the 
iioly  clrnj  in  the  text,  but  comes  wiiliin  the  denomina- 
tion of  sabbaths,  and  to  which  this  v-'ord  must  neces- 
sarily refer.      Hence  it  is  absurd  to  argue,  as  you  do., 
that  holy  day  [heortes,/ea^/5,  ]  must  iaclude  the  fes- 
tival sabbaths,  and  th^t  sabbaths  [sabbaton]  must  in- 
clude the  weekly  Sabbath.     But  there  is  still  another 
important  difficulty  in  the  way  of  your  opinion  upon 
ihe  text  under  consideration.     The  weekly  Sabbath 
is  admitted  by  yourself  to  be  a  moral  institution.      If 
sabbaths  in  this  text  were  designed  to  embrace  the^ 
weekly  day  of  rcst,  it  strikes  not  at  the   branches  of 
the  institution,  but  at  the   root  itself;  and  levels,  not 
rthe  observance  of  the  seventh  day  only,  but  the  sab" 
batic  institution,  to  the  standard  of  meat  and  drink, 
^iid  other  ceremonial  observances.     Even  the  septe- 


300  SABBATH     DISCUSSION, 

nary  division  of  time  which  resulted  from  it  must 
also  be  annihilated.  If  the  root  be  dead,  the  branches 
must  be  dead  also.  It  appears  to  me,  therefore, 
morally  certain,  that  the  word  sabbaths,  in  Col.  ii.  16, 
was  never  designed  to  affect  the  weekly  Sabbath,  any 
farther  than  the  Jewish  ritual  v/as  concerned  ;  and 
there  is  but  little  probability  that  the  apostle  had  any 
allusion  to  it  whatever.  I  do  not  understand  your 
meaning  when  you  say  in  the  beginning  of  your  let- 
ter, (March  18,)  "you  do  me  injustice."  You 
seem  to  intimate  that  I  had  charged  you  with  sup- 
plying the  word  days  in  Col.  ii.  16.  \^  this  is  what 
you  design,  I  would  say  that  I  have  not  intimated 
that  you  have  so  done. 

In  noticing,  (  May  18,  )  my  observation  made  to 
you,  (  October  16,  )  that  Israel  had  the  "  lively  ora- 
cles ''  —  the  decalogue,  committed  to  them  to  be  finally 
given  to  the  Church,  Acts  vii.  38  ;  you  entirely  mis- 
apprehend me  ;  and,  therefore,  say  my  argument 
stands  for  nothing.  I  designed  not  to  intimate  that 
the  ecclesia,  [Church,]  in  this  place,  meant  the  Gos- 
pel Church,  nor  that  the  pronoun  ?«5  referred  to  "the 
congregation  in  the  wilderness  ; ''  but  to  Stephen 
and  his  cotejnpories,  who  then  had  these  living  vjordSy 
and  especially  his  associate  believers  in  the  Gospel, 
to  whom  alone  were  they  really  valuable.  Now  you 
surely  will  not  deny  that  God  designed,  when  he  gave 
these  "  lively  oracles  "  to  Israel,  that  they  should  be- 
preserved,  and  eventually,  through  that  people,  be 
given  to  the  Gospel  Church,  Unless  you  deny  this, 
your  objections  to  my  argument  stand  for  nothing. 

In  quoting  my  remarks  on  Mark  ii.  28,  (  March 
18,  )  you  seem  intent  upon  misconstruing  my  mean- 
ing. You  do,  indeed,  cite  my  words,  fitting  them 
better  for  your  purpose,  by  a  parenthesis,  than  I 
wrote  them.     Had  you  quoted  niy  sentence  entir-^., 


SABBATH     DISCUSSION".  301 

you  would  not  have  been  inclined  to  follow  it  with 
your  censorious  comment.  In  reterring  to  this  text, 
1  said,  ''by  this  he  [Christ]  intimated  the  perman- 
ency of  the  institution,  and  that  he  was  not  the  Lord 
of  a  shadow  —  a  weak  and  beggarly  element  ;  but  of 
a  solid  good,  which  the  Sabbath  has  always  been  to 
the  people  of  God.  "  By  this  it  will  be  seen  that  I 
limited  the  remark  to  the  Sabbath  :  asserting  that  it 
was  not  a  shadow  —  a  weak  and  beggarly  element  ; 
but  a  solid  good.  The  negative  part  of  this  asser- 
tion you  say  is  not  true.  And  the  positive  part  has 
no  more  truth  in  it  than  what  every  Christian  thank- 
fully acknowledges.  By  this  you  make  the  Sabbath 
a  shadow  and  a  solid  good  at  the  same  time.  I  leave 
the  reader  to  judge  which  of  us  is  on  the  side  of 
truth. 

In  support  of  your  assertion  that  Christ  retained 
the  moral  part  of  the  sabbatic  institution,  and  trans- 
ferred the  positive  part  of  it  to  the  day  of  his  resur- 
rection, you  have  cited  Heb.  iv.  10.  "  For  he  that  is 
entered  into  his  rest,  "  &c.  This  passage  has  not 
before  been  considered  ;  for  I  considered  it  entirely 
irrelevant  to  the  subject  of  our  discussion.  But,  as  it 
seems  to  be  much  relied  upon  as  evidence  of  a  change 
of  the  Sabbath,  I  will  here  state  that  I  see  not  hov/  it 
has  the  slightest  reference  to  the  subject.  The  whole 
argument  of  this  chapter  has  especially  in  view  that 
state  of  rest  into  which  the  militant  believer  has  not 
yet  entered  ;  that  is,  the  heavenly  rest.  The  pro- 
noun he  cannot  be  designed  to  refer  to  Christ,  as  is 
frequently  urged  ;  for  he  had  not  been  mentioned  in 
the  whole  of  the  apostle's  proceeding  argument  ;  nor 
can  it  refer  to  Jesus  in  the  eighth  verse,  for  this 
means  Joshua,  and  should  be  so  rendered.  The  only 
antecedent  to  i.he  pronoun  is  'peo-ple,  in  the  preceding 
verse,  which  is  also  m  the  sinsfular  number.     And  it 


302 


SABBATH    DISCUSSION. 


is  not  true  in  point  o{  fact,  that  Christ,  after  he  had 
finished  his  work,  entered  into  his  rest  on  the  first  day 
of  the  week  ;  for  this  must  have  been  on  the  day  of 
his  crucifixion.  When  lie  entered  paraiiise,  or  forty 
days  after  his  resurrection,  generally  supposed  to 
be  on  Thursday.  In  short,  the  whole  scope  of  the 
apostle's  argument,  in  this  chapter,  siiows  that  his 
sole  object  was  to  impress  upon  the  Hebrew  Christ- 
ians the  necessity  of  perseverance  in  order  to  their 
final  success. 

In  considering  my  argument  drawn  from  Ps.  iii. 
7,  8,  you  ask,  "can  you  be  quite  certain  that  the 
psalmist,  by  'all  God's  commandments,'  meant  all 
ins  commandments  in  the  decalogue  ?  -'  To  this  I 
reply,  that  I  am  fully  satisfied  that  the  passage  ap- 
plies to  the  decalogue,  more  properly  than  to  any  other 
class  of  commandments  or  ordinances  then  given 
to  men,  or  known  to  the  world.  You  object  to  the 
application  of  kol-pekudaiv,  the  word  rendered  "  all 
his  commandments,  ^'  to  the  decalogue,  and  say  it 
will  not  bear  my  interpretation.  Let  us  see.  The 
words  occurs  in  Ps.  xix.  9,  and  in  its  connection,  is 
thus  ''the  fear  of  the  Lord.  "  Ps.  cxix.  128,  "  there- 
fore I  esteem  all  thy  yreceyts  ;  "  verse  87,  "  but  I 
forsook  not  thy  precepts.  "  Ps.  ciii.  18,  "  and  those 
tliat  remember  his  commandments.  "  And  the  place 
under  consideration,  "  all  thy  commandments  are 
sure.  "  In  these  examples,  it  is  easy  to  see  that  the 
words  in  Italic  can  refer  to  no  law  with  so  much  pro- 
priety as  to  the  decalogue,  which  was  held  by  the  au- 
thor and  the  whole  Jewish  nation  in  the  highest  esti- 
mation, and  which  is  universally  admitted  to  be  the 
standard  of  morality  in  every  generation.  I  will  just 
add  from  Parkhurst's  Heb.  Lex.,  under  pakad  ^ 
^'  when  used  as  a  masculine  noun  plural  in  regimen, 


SABBATH    DISCUSSION. 


303 


it  signifies  charges  committed  by  God  to  man  for  his 
regard  and  observance.  "  Your  criticism  on  this 
place  has  not  suggested  to  me  any  thing  more  proba- 
bly correct. 

In  perusing  your  letter  of  April  8,  I  find  but  very 
little  more  in  support  of  your  preference  for  the  first 
day  than  you  formerly  published,  and  to  which  I  have 
replied.  It  consists  chiefly  in  unauthorized  infer- 
ences. Whatever  reasons  you  may  see,  or  think 
you  see,  from  God's  beginning  his  work  on  the  first 
day,  from  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  the  falling  of 
manna,  or  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Ghost  at  pente- 
cost,  for  the  sanctification  of  this  day  ;  it  is  but 
human  reason,  which,  in  its  best  state,  is  fallible  and 
inclined  to  err.  No  result  of  this  kind  can  be  equi- 
valent to  a  divine  warrant.  After  all  the  learning 
and  ingenuity  of  the  world  are  exhausted  in  finding 
reasons  and  establishing  regulations  for  the  worship 
of  the  true  God  ;  without  a  "  thus  serif h  the  Lord,  " 
the  almighty  Elohim  would  say,  "  Who  hath  re- 
quired this  at  your  hand  V  "  To  obey,  is  better 
than  sacrifice  ;  and  to  hearken,  than  the  fat  of  rams." 
I  Sam.  XV.  22.  The  circumstance  of  king  Saul 
should  teach  every  man,  and  especially  every  minis- 
ter of  the  Gospel,  the  danger  of  leaning  to  human 
understanding. 

In  this  letter  you  intimate  that  I  think  that  because 
Christians  enjoy  the  divine  presence  when  assembled 
on  the  Sabbath,  it  is  an  evidence  that  they  are  right 
in  the  observance  of  the  day.  I  have  said  nothing 
like  this  ;  my  remark  was  designed  to  show  that 
your  reasoning  thus  in  favor  of  the  first  day  is  incon- 
clusive. 

Respecting  my  remarks  upon  the  times  of  the  resur- 
rection and  of  pentecost,  you  find  it  much  easier  to 
satirize  than  to  confute  them.     It  is  difficult  to  please 


304  SABBATH    DISCUSSION. 

you.  If  I  speak  confidently  ;  I  must  learn  to  tvrite 
more  modestly.  If  I  would  know  any  thing  ;  I  am  then 
confining  all  knowledge  to  Sabhatarians.  If  I  do  not 
speak  dogmatically ;  why  then  I  am  too  dijident  and  do 
not  venture,  or  am  in  douhting  castle,  or  some  such 
place.  Now  there  is  no  argument  to  convince  in  all 
this.  Christian  humility  does  not  require  me  to  with- 
hold speaking  what  1  believe  to  be  true  in  relation  to 
religious  duty  ;  nor  will  it  allow  me  to  be  over-posi- 
tive of  what  the  Scriptures  have  not  plainly  asserted. 
Still  I  think  that  you  and  every  other  person  can, 
upon  reading  my  remarks  upon  these  points,  very 
easily  ascertain  what  my  opinion  is.  I  know  not 
why  you  should  be  so  much  surprised  at  my  not  being 
of  your  opinion  as  to  the  time  of  pentecost ;  since 
you  well  know  that  many  good  and  wise  men,  who 
have  all  the  means  of  ascertaining  the  truth  that 
either  of  us  have,  and  whose  interest  it  was  to  believe 
as  you  do,  and  yet  have  differed  from  you  as  to  the 
day  of  the  week  on  which  pentecost  fell.  Among 
others  formerly  named,  you  may  number  ISlr.  Barnes. 
See  his  notes  on  Acts  ii.  1.  According  to  him,  it  is 
impossible  for  any  man  to  tell  whether  it  fell  on  the 
seventh,  or  on  the  first  day  of  the  week. 

Near  the  close  of  this  letter,  you  charge  me  with 
saying,  in  order  to  avoid  the  force  of  your  remarks, 
''  if  we  could  even  admit  that  the  day  of  pentecost  in 
question  fell  on  the  first  day  of  the  week,  the  descent 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  on  that  day  was  not  to  honor  it  as 
tlie  first  day  of  the  week,  or  as  the  resurrection-day 
of  Christ,  but  as  the  day  of  pentecost.  "  Now,  as 
bad  as  this  looks  to  you,  and  as  much  as  you  are 
shocked  by  it,  you  have  no  body  to  blame  but  your- 
self; for  I  never  penned  those  remarks  until  now 
while  I  copy  them  from  your  letter,  nor  ever  thought 
that  an  honor  upon   the  feast  of  pentecost  was  de- 


SABBATH     DISCUSSIOX. 


305 


signed  by  the  descent  of  the  Spirit  at  this  time.  My 
remark  you  pretend  to  cite  is  this,  (December  11.) 
*'  But,  sir  I  can  see  no  advantage  the  first  day  of  the 
week  could  derive  from  the  feast  of  pentecost  falling 
upon  it  ;  for  it  was  kept  as  pentecost,  and  as  such 
only  is  it  mentioned  in  the  Scriptures.  If  any  honor 
was  conferred  upon  the  season  by  the  remarkable 
out-pouring  of  the  Spirit,  it  was  an  honor  conferred 
on  this  annual  feast,  and  not  on  the  day  of  the  week 
on  which  it  fell.  ''  In  all  this  I  have  said  nothing 
intimating  that  I  believed  an  honor- was  designed  to 
be  conferred  upon  pentecost,  or  upon  any  other  day 
either  of  annual  or  weekly  recurrence  ;  neither  do  I 
believe  that  God  designed  any  such  thing  in  this  gra- 
cious gift,  but  to  honor  the  Gospel  of  his  dear  son  in 
the  salvation  of  sinners. 

In  your  following  letter,  (April  15,  )  you  ask  rne 
if  I  can  be  serious  in  saying  that  your  conclusion  that 
the  manna  began  to  fall  on  the  first  day  of  the  week 
is  an  assumption  ?  Yes  Sir,  I  sincerely  believe  it  is 
an  assumption.  By  this,  I  do  not  mean  to  say  that 
you  cannot  count  seven  either  forward,  or  backward, 
v/hether  I  have  sufficient  intellect  for  tiiis,  or  not. — 
My  opinion  in  regard  to  your  conclusion  has  nothing 
to  do  with  your  skill  in  arithmetic.  But  you  have 
supposed  a  number  of  things  relative  to  the  manna, 
which  1  do  not  doubt,  looked  very  probable  to  you  ; 
and  'then  you  seem  to  proceed  upon  the  principle  that 
a  number  of  probabilities  make  a  certainty.  You 
first  think  it  probable  that  during  the  last  150  years 
that  the  Israelites  were  in  Egypt,  they  were  in  such 
abject  slavery,  as  not  to  be  allowed  "time  to  observe 
the  Sabbath.  Then,  as  they  were  without  records, 
you  think  it  is  reasonable  to  suppose  they  had  lost 
the  weekly  return  of  the  day  of  rest,  or  to  have  been 
in  doubt  about  it.     You  then  lake  it  for  granted  that 


306 


SABBATH    DISCUSSION. 


they  had  actually  lost  the  time  of  the  week.  You 
then  suppose  that  Moses,  being  inspired,  directed  them 
especially,  that  on  the  sixth  day  they  should  gather  a 
double  quantity  ;  of  this  you  cannot  be  certain,  as 
the  record  given  in  Exodus  which  is  all  we  have  that 
can  be  relied  upon,  gives  not  this  information.  You 
then  assume  the  fact,  that  the  sixth  day  on  which 
they  gathered  a  double  portion,  was  the  sixth  from 
the  first  falling  of  manna,  and  so  termed  on  this  ac- 
count, rather  than  as  the  sixth  day  of  the  ancient 
week:  of  this  you  cannot  be  quite  certain.  Had  the 
names  of  the  several  days  of  the  week  now  in  use, 
been  used  by  the  Israelites  in  the  days  of  Moses,  and 
he  had  in  the  account  of  the  manna  used  the  term 
Friday  instead  of  the  sixth  day  ;  how  could  it  have 
been  ascertained  from  the  account  he  has  given,  how 
many  days  they  had  gathered  manna  before  Friday 
come  ?  Now  when  it  is  considered  that  the  sixth  day 
was  the  only  term  by  which  the  day  before  the  Sab- 
bath was  then  known,  it  is  evident  that  it  is  an  as- 
sumption, and,  in  my  opinion,  a  very  improbable  one, 
to  conclude  that  the  sixth  day  here  was  intended  as 
such  from  the  first  gathering  the  manna,  rather 
than  as  designating  its  appropriate  place  in  the  week 
by  its  proper  and  only  name.  That  none  of  the  Jews 
observed  the  Sabbath^in  Egypt  — that  they  had  so  lost 
the  knowledge  of  the  Sabbath  as  to  render  in  neces- 
sary that  they  should  be  informed,  by  revelation 
when  it  came,  and  that  they  were  thus  informed  by 
the  arrangement  of  the  manna,  are,  in  my  opinion, 
all  mere  conjectures.  What  Maimonides  has  said 
of  the  Jews  in  Egypt,  that  they  could  not  serve  God 
as  they  desired  ;  and  that  they  did  not  keep  a  Sabbath, 
is  but  the  opinion  of  a  man  ;  but  it  implies  that  they 
know  when  the  Sabbath  came,  and  would  have  kept 
it  if  they    could.       The  suggestion  that  the  manna 


SABBATH    DISCUSSION.  307 

might  have  fallen  some  days  on  the  preceding  weeky 
with  which  you  have  charged  me,  I  have  never  made. 
Neither  have  I,  as  you  assert,  ajfected  to  believe  that 
the  Jews  obs^^^rved  the  Sabbath  during  their  stay  in 
Egypt,  and  brought  both  the  knowledge  and  the  ob- 
servance of  iL  with  them  into  the  wilderness.  I  mere- 
ly said  (Nov.  13)  that  I  could  not  discover  the  pro- 
priety of  your  conclusion,  that  the  Jews  while  in 
Egypt  had  e.Uirely  lost  the  arrangement  of  the  week. 
And  I  stated  my  reasons  for  differing  from  you  ;  but 
I  did  not  affect  this.  I  really  believe  it  then,  and  do 
HOW  ;  that  your  conclusion  is  erroneous.  And  least 
of  all,  could  I  affect  this  to  evade,  what  you  call  the 
manifest  fact,  that  God,  by  the  falling  of  manna  re- 
newed to  Israel  the  knowledge  of  the  true  time  of  the 
Sabbath.  It  is  difficult  to  reconcile  so  many  great  and 
])alpabie  misrepresentations  of  my  statemements  with 
candid  mistake  ;  and  I  am  very  sorry,  that,  when  wri- 
ting to  a  Christian  brother,  I  have  occasion  to  cor- 
rect so  many  errors  of  this  discription. 

My  remarks  in  proof  that  the  primitive  Christians 
observed  the  Sabbath,  and  which  you  say  "  are  weak 
in  the  extreme,^'  1  am  willing  should  be  read  bj^  those 
whose  preju  lices  may  not  prevent  their  feeling  their 
force.  I  have  no  doubt,  but  that  your  reply  to 
them  resulted  from  the  persuasion  thtit  the  facts  to 
which  1  have  referred,  are  capable  of  producing 
results  in  the  mind  of  our  readers^  similar  to  what 
they  have  produced  in  mine. 

At  the  close  of  your  letter  (March  11)  you  say, 
*'  We  know  by  the  example  of  the  apostles,  and  of 
the  Churches  in  their  times,  that  they  understood 
Christ  to  have  transferred  the  positive  part,  the  time 
of  the  sacred  rest,  to  the  day  of  his  resurrection  ; 
namely,  the  first  day  of  the  week,  Acts  xx.  7.  I  Cor. 
xvi.  2.  '^     This  is,  in  my  opinion  a  very  bold  asser- 


308  SABBATH     DISCUSSION. 

tion.  Had  you  said  you  believed  this,  perhaps  no 
body  would  have  disputed  you.  But  how  can  you 
know  that  the  apostles  understood  Christ  to  have  done 
this  '?  The  texts  to  which  you  refer  cannot  give  you 
this  information.  And  why  did  you  not  formerly 
know  and  believe  this  1  And  why  is  it  that  such  a 
large  portion  of  professing  Christians,  who  observe 
the  first  day  of  the  week,  do  not  believe  it  ?  You 
may  say  the  apostles  received  this  of  Christ  among 
other  things  that  are  not  recorded  ;  but  the  question 
returns  again,  —  how  could  you  have  ascertained, 
with  such  certainty,  what  the  apostles  and  primitive 
Churches  understood  beyond  what  is  imparted  by  their 
authorized  records  %  It  would  not  be  difficult  to  show, 
by  Scripture  illustrations,  the  entire  uncertainty  of 
those  texts  you  have  cited,  when  properly  rendered, 
so  much  as  mentioning  the  first  day  of  the  week.* 

*  All  that  is  claimed  in  Acts  xx.  7,  and  I  Cor.  xvi.  2,  as  favoring 
the  sanctity  of  the  first  day  of  the  week,  is  from  the  import  of  the 
phrase  te  mia  ton  sabbaton,  literally  one  of  the  sabbaths,  but  ren- 
dered in  our  version  "  the  first  day  of  the  week.  "  Th's  form  of  ex- 
pression frequently  occurs  in  the  New  Testament,  where  it  relates 
to  nouns  of  different  significations.  Its  proper  and  scriptural  im- 
port may  be  gathered  from  the  following  examples  :  Matt.  v.  18,  e 
mia  keraia,  "  or  one  tittle  ;"  verse  19,  mian  ton  entolon,  "  one  of 
these  commandments."  Matt.  xxvi.  69,  mia  ton  paidiskon,  "one  of 
the  maids."  Luke  v.  12,  mia  ton  poleon,  "  a  certain  city  ;"  verse  17, 
mia  ton  hemeron,  "  a  certain  day  ;"  chap.  xx.  1,  en  mia  ton  hemeron, 
"  on  one  of  those  days  ;"  chap,  xiii  10,  mia  ton  sunagogon,  "  one  of 
the  synagogues."  A  great  many  other  examples  might  be  given,  but 
these  are  sufficient  to  show  the  uniform  sense  in  which  this  form  of 
phrase  is  used  in  the  New  Testament.  And  no  good  reason  can  be 
given  why  mia  ton  sabbaton,  in  Acts  xx.  7,  and  mian  sabbaton,  in 
1  Cor.  xvi,  2,  should  not  be  rendered  according-  to  the  same  rules  of 
interpretation  by  which  all  these  other  phrases  of  the  same  form 
have  been  translated.  If  the  foregoing  examples  give  the  true  sense 
of  the  original,  which  will  not  be  denied,  then  in  the  texts  last  cited 
we  should  render  the  words  under  consideration,  on  a  certain  Sab- 
bath.— one  of  those  sabbaths,  one  of  the  sabbaths,  or,  what  is  less 
eliptical  in  form,  as  is  expressed  in  Luke  iv.  16,  en  te  hemera  ton 
sabbaton,  literally,  in  the  day  of  the  sabbaths,  but  properly,  in  our 
own  idiom,  as  it  is  rendered,  "  on  the  Sabbath  day."    To  insist,  as 


SABBATH     DISCUSSION.  309 

111  noticing  my  extract  from  the  Ecclesiastical  His- 
tory of  Socrates,  you  appear  surprised  that  I  should 
quote  him  for  the  purpose  I  have  ;  namely,  to  show 
that  in  his  time,  (about  the  middle  of  the  fourth  cen- 
tury, )  the  Sabbath  was  generally  observed  by  the 
Churches.  But  why  should  you  be  surprised  at 
this  1  Others,  for  hundreds  of  years,  have  cited 
him  for  the  same  purpose.  You  admit  that  he  says, 
that,  in  a  manner,  all  the  Churches  throughout  the 
whole  world  observed  the  Sabbath.  It  was  for  his 
testimony  on  this  point  that  I  quoted  him  ;  and,  hav- 
ing proved  this,  it  matters  not  what  his  opinion  of 
the  practice  was,  nor  what  his  object  was  in  record- 
ing what  he  did  ;  nor  is  his  account  of  this  matter, 
nor  that  of  Sozomen  who  corroborates  it,  contra- 
dictory, because  they  state  that  the  Churches 
generally  observed  the  first  day  of  the  week.  The 
testimony  of  the  fathers  agree  that  both  days  were 
observed  ;  the  Sabbath,  in  conformity  with  the 
fourth  commandment,  and  the  first  day,  as  a  memo- 
rial of  the  resurrection.  But  having  proved  that 
the  early  Christians  kept  the  Sabbath  in  obedience 
to  the  fourth  commandment  ;  they  have  also  proved 
that  they  did  not  believe  that  the  commandment 
was  abrogated,  or  that  the  sanctity  of  the  seventh 
day  was  transferred  to  the  first.  In  this,  Socrates, 
Sozomen,  AtJienathius,  and  Grotius,  agree.  I  also 
cited  Dr.  Chambers  as  collateral  evidence  that  early- 
Christians  observed  the  Sabbath  from  the  authority 

many  do,  that  this  phrase,  in  Acts  xx.  7,  and  other  places,  is  fairly 
translated  the  first  day  of  the  week,  is  evincing-  great  inattention  to 
its  scriptural  and  true  signification  ;  or,  what  is  more  reprehensible, 
an  imwillingness  to  admit  its  true  import.  Indeed,  there  is  much 
more  reason  to  believe  that  those  passages  refer  either  to  a  ceremo- 
nial, or  the  weekly  Sabbath,  rather  than  to  the  first  day  of  the  week. 
The  foregoing  reference  to  Matt,  xxvi.69,  should  have  been  Mark 
xiv.  66.  The  passage  in  Matt.  xxyi.  69,  is  mia  paideske,  rendered 
"  a  damsel.  "  yf  jj   jyj 

T 


310 


SABBATH    DISCUSSION. 


of  the  fourth  commandment,  which  you  have  denied. 
I  must  defer  a  few  further  remarks  upon  this  last 
autlior  to  my  next. 

I  remain  your  sincere  friend, 

W.  B.  MAXSON. 


LETTER  XXVIL 


To  TfiK  Rev.  W.  Parkinson. 

Dear  Brother, — In  my  former  letter  I  observed 
that  1  had  quoted  Dr.  Chanihers  as  corroborating  testi- 
mony that  early  Christians  observed  the  seventh  day 
as  the  Sabbath  from  the  authority  of  the  fourth  com- 
mandment. You  say,  you  are  glad  I  have  refered  to 
him,  as  he  says  much  in  favor  of  your  views  of  this 
matter.  If  he  agrees  with  you  in  thinking  that  early 
Christians  observed  the  first  day,  he  differs  from  you 
in  regard  to  their  observance  of  the  Sabbath,  and  it  is 
only  by  disproving  this  practice  that  you  can  be  assisted 
in  the  support  of  your  views.  But  even  the  statement 
of  Dr.  Chamhci  s  seems  not  to  assist  you  as  much  as 
you  imagine.  In  his  article,  Sunday  which  you  have 
quoted,  he  says,  "  Indeed,  some  are  of  opinion  that  the 
Lard's  day,  mentioned  in  the  Apocalypse  is  our  Sun- 
day, which  they  will  have  to  have  been  so  early  in- 
stituted by  the  apostles.  Be  this  as  it  will,  it  is  cer- 
tain a  regard  was  had  to  this  day  even  in  the  earli- 
est ages  of  the  Church,  as  apj^ears  from  Justin  Mar- 
tyr."  He  thus  expresses  himself  as  doubtful  of  the 
observance  of  the  first  day  as  early  as  the  writing  of 
the  Apocalypse,  and  his  "  earliest  ages  of  the  Church" 
camiot  go  farther  back  than,  the  time  of  Justin  Martyr, 
about  A.  D.  150,  for  his  statement  referred  to  his   own 


SABBATH    DISCUSSION.  311 

time.  In  quoting  his  article  SahhatJt,  I  conceive  you 
have  not  done  him  justice.  He  says,  "  The  Christians 
also  apply  the  word  Sabbath  by  extension  to  the  first 
day  of  the  week,  properly  called  Sunday,  or  the 
Lord's  day,  as  instituted  by  the  apostles  to  take  j^lace 
&LC.  "  So  you  see  he  does  not  assert  that  the  first  day 
was  instituted  by  the  apostles,  but  that  the  Christians 
applied  the  term  Sabbath  to  it,  as  sujiposing  it  was 
instituted  by  them. 

Under  date  of  April  22,  in  remarking  upon  my  say- 
ing I  had  no  particular  interest  as  to  the  time  of  our 
Lord's  resurrection  (  Dec.  4  )  you  construe  me  as 
meaning  that  it  is  consistent  with  my  interest  to  ob- 
scure the  scriptural  evidence  that  it  occurred  upon  the 
first  day.  But,  Sir,  I  have  there  explained  what  I 
meant  by  interest  and  consistency.  It  is  every  man's 
interest  to  be  consistent,  even- in  matters  of  small  im- 
portance, and  nominal  interest  at  least,  in  being  of  the 
same  mind  with  his  fellow-christians  on  every  reli- 
gious topic ;  but  the  interest  I  have  in  knowino-  the 
precise  time  of  our  Lord's  resurrection  is,  in  my  oijin- 
ion,  of  small  moment  ;  as  no  duty  is  determined  by 
such  knowledge.  It  is  sufficient  for  me  to  know  that 
he  has  risen  according  to  the  Scriptures  ;  "  and  be- 
come the  first  fruits  of  them  that  slept.  "  Nor  have  I 
any  interest  in  obscuring  any  evidence  the  Scriptures 
afford  on  this  subject.  Arid  I  say  again,  that  I  have 
no  objections  to  its  having  occurred  on  the  first  day 
of  the  week  ;  but  the  Scriptures  do  not  contain  one 
syllable,  to  show  that  the  day  of  his  resurrection  was, 
or  should  be  regarded  as  the  Christian  Sabbath,  I 
well  know,  as  you  say,  that  the  belief  that  Christ  rose 
on  the  first  day,  is  the  principal  reason  for  most,  and  to 
some,  the  only  reason  for  observing  it;  but  Sir,  that  I  al- 
so know  that  many  Sabbatarians  avow,  that  if  they  were 
convinced  that  Christ  rose  on  that  day,  they  would  ob- 
t2 


312  SABBATH     DISCUSSION. 

serve  it,  as  you  assert,  I  positively  deny.  If  there  are 
such  persons  among  Sabbatarians,  I  am  ignorant  of  it ; 
nor  did  I  ever'know  of  such  a  case;  but  I  do  know  of  ma- 
ny substantial  members  of  our  Churches,  who  avow  the 
belief  that  Christ  rose  on  the  first  day  ;  and  that  this 
belief,  by  no  means,  affects  their  vie^vs  of  the  obser- 
vance of  the  Sabbath.  On  this  point  I  am  willing  ev- 
ery person  shall  enjoy  his  own  opinion. 

Respecting  your  illustrations  of  Matt,  xxviii.  1. — 
Dan.  ix.  27,  and  your  reasons  for  observing  the  day 
of  rest  at  midnight,  with  noting  a  few  things,  I  will 
leave  for  the  reader  to  settle  his  oMm  opinion  as  to 
their  accuracy.  1.  To  evade  the  evidence  I  adduced 
that  the  first  visit  of  the  two  Marys  to  the  sepulchre 
was  in  the  evening  of  the  Sabbath,  you  state  that  o/we 
signifies  after  ^rid  in  Matt,  xxviii.  1,  a  good  while  after  ; 
but  this  sense  is  sustained  by  no  better  authority  than 
licentious  heathen  writers,  who  took  the  liberty  of 
giving  words  an  unlimited  sense,  and  often  very 
•wide  from  their  etymological  meaning.  The  instances 
you  cite  from  the  fabulous  Pkilostratus  are  not  of  suf- 
ficient weight  to  settle  the  sense  of  a  word  against  the 
divinely  authorized  use  of  it  in  the  N.  Testament. — 
Apply  your  sense  of  6»/7*cto  Mark  xl.  19,  or  xiii»  35, 
where  the  Avord  occurs,  and  substitute  it  for  the  true 
reading,  eve?img  ;  and  what  will  you  make  of  it  ?  In 
the  New  Testament,  opsc  and  its  derivatives  have  the 
sense  o£  evening.  2.  I  have  already  cited  instances 
sufficient  to  bhow  that  Sahbato?i,  plu.  gen.  is  frequent- 
ly used  for  <S«Z)Z'«^'7/ —  a  single  Sahhatlt  Say,  as  the 
word  in  its  first  occurrence  in  Matt,  xxviii.  1,  unques- 
tionably means,  and  as  it  is  rendered.  3.  Settling  the 
sense  of  opse  determines  the  meaning  of  cj^iphos^o^ise 
and  as  you  have  admitted  that  it  will  equally  apply 
to  the  evening  and  morning  twilight  ;  so  we  see,  ac-, 
cordino-   to    the    tet^tlmony  I  formerly  adduced  on  this 


SABBATH     DISCUSSION.  313 

passage,  it  signifies  tlic  same  as  it  does  in  Luke  xxiii. 
54,  to  draw  on  or  ajyjrroacJi.  4.  You  must  know 
that  first  is  not  the  literal  sense  o£  ?uia,  the  feminine 
oHieis,  one.  5.  You  insist  upon  it  that  tke  reason  St. 
John  had  for  calling  the  imssover  Sabbath  a  high 
[  great  ]  day,  chap.  xix.  31,  was  that  this  and  the  week- 
ly Sabbath  happened  this  year  on  the  same  day.  But 
^side  from  this  concurrence,  according  to  Eusehms, 
the  passover  was  denominated,  the  great  Sahhath.  In 
his  Eccl.  Hist.  b.  ii.  c.  17,  in  speaking  of  the  passover 
iveek,  he  calls  it  the  great  festival :  and  in  b,  iv.  c.  15, 
fie  says  ofPolycai-p  in  quoting  an  ancient  letter  of  his 
CJhurch,  that  he  was  seized  and  taken  to  the  city  on  a 
great  Sahbatk.  Cruse,  his  ti*anslator,  remarks  that 
the  Greek  fathers  called  the  passion  week,  the  great 
7veek,  and  that  the  great  Sabbath  was  the  feast  of  tm- 
leavened  bread  which  immediately  preceded  [  follow- 
ed ]  the  2>assover  ;  and  cites.  Beverage  Can.  Apost. 
6.  By  your  own  statements,  the  first  meeting  of  Christ 
with  his  disciples  after  his  return  from  Emmaus,  was 
not  propabiy  on  the  first,  but  the  second  day  of  the 
week  ;  as  you  admit  that  the  sacred  day  closed  at  sun- 
setting,  and  that  it  was  after  night-fall  when  he  made 
his  appearance  among  his  di«ciple^.  It  is  useless, 
therefore,  for  you  to  talk  of  this  meeting  beino-  on 
the  first  day  of  the  weeL  To  what  part  of  the  next 
week  will  you  bring  the  next  meeting,  which  was  af- 
ter eight  days  from  this  evening  1  John  xx.  26.  The 
notion  of  a  cJiasm  of  about  six  hours  between  the 
close  of  the  Sabbath  and  the  beginning  of  the  first  day, 
together  with  the  reasons  you  assign  for  begiunino- the 
sacred  day  at  midnight,  are  only  such  as  are  dictated 
by  a  desire  to  accommodate  duty  to  convenience. 

In  your  letter  of  April  29,  when  referring  to  your 
former  arguments  in  favor  of  Christ  having  ate  his 
last  passover  with  his  disciples  a  day  before  the  legal 


314  SABBATH    DISCUSSION. 

time,  you  complain  that  I  have  not  noticed  your  re- 
marks upon  Mark  xiv.  12,  and  Luke  xxii.  7.  I 
think  they  are  sufficiently  noticed  in  my  letter  of 
Dec.  11,  to  which  I  refer  you.  While  on  this  subject, 
you  charge  me  with  great  injustice  to  Dr.  Clarke  in 
my  quotation  from  him  by  suppressing  his  connection. 
However,  I  am  not  aware  that  I  have  mis-stated  his 
views.  To  show  that  I  have  fairly  quoted  him,  I 
will  give  a  brief  outline  of  his  connection.  At  the 
end  of  Matt.  xxvi.  chap.  ;  in  giving  the  opinion  of 
Dr.  Cudworth,  relative  to  our  Lord's  last  Passover, 
and  who,  he  says,  of  all  others  has  handled  the  sub- 
ject the  best.  After  stating  that  about  our  Sa- 
viour's time,  the  Jewish  Rabbins  and  the  ancient  Jews, 
often  solemnized,  as  well  the  passovei-  as  the  other 
feasts  upon  the  ferias  [holidays]  next  before  and  after 
the  Sabbath.  And  as  they  reckoned  the  new  m.oon 
not  according  to  astronomical  exactness  ;  but  accor- 
ding to  the  moons  appearance  ;  the  Senate  sat  all  the 
30th  day  of  every  month,  to  receive  and  examine 
witnesses  who  would  testify  that  they  had  seen  the 
new  moon.  When  this  was  done,  they  proclaimed, 
'■^it  is  sanctified.''  But  if  no  witnesses  come  in  the 
course  of  the  day,  they  decreed  the  one  and  thir- 
teenth day  to  be  the  calends,  of  firstday  of  the  month. 
But  if  befoi'e  the  end  of  the  month,  witnesses  from 
far  should  testify  that  they  had  seen  the  new  moon 
in  its  due  time,  the  Senate  was  bound  to  alter  the  be- 
ginning of  the  month  and  make  it  a  day  sooner. — 
But  as  they  were  unwilling  to  be  at  the  trouble  of  a 
second  consecration,  they  received  reluctantly  these 
latter  witnesses,  and  finally  made  a  statute  "that 
whatever  time  the  Senate  should  conclude  on  for  the 
calends  of  the  month,  though  it  were  certain  they 
were  in  the  wrong  ;  yet  all  were  bound  to  order  their 
feasts  according   to  It.  '^     This  Dr.  Cudworth  sup- 


SABBATH    DISCUSSION- 


315 


poses  actually  took  place  in  the  time  our  Lord,  and 
as  it  was  not  likely  that  Christ  would  submit  to  this 
perversion  of"  the  original  custom  ;  and  that  following 
the  true  appearance  of  the  moon,  confirmed  by  suf- 
ficient witnesses,  he  and  his  disciples  ate  the  pass- 
over  on  that  day  ;  but  the  Jews  following  the  perte- 
iiacious  decree  of  the  Sanhedrin,  did  not  eat  it  till 
the  day  following.  ''  That  Dr.  Cudworth  shows 
from  Epiphanius  that  there  was  a  tumult  about  the 
passover  that  year — That  what  was  the  real  paschal 
day  to  our  Lord,  his  disciples,  and  the  pious  Jews 
who  adopted  the  true  phesis  was  only  the  prepara- 
tion to  others  who  acted  on  the  decree  of  the  Senate. 
That  the  Karaitis  and  even  the  Rabbins  grant  that 
when  the  case  is  doubtful,  the  passover  should  be 
celebrated  with  the  same  solemnity  two  days  together. 
In  the  foregoing  synopsis  of  the  opinion  of  Cudworth 
and  Clarke,  a  difference  of  twenty-four  hours  is  al- 
lowed between  the  time  when  Christ  and  his  disciples 
ate  their  passover,  and  that  when  the  other  Jews  ate 
theirs.  Dr.  Clarke,  in  order  to  bring  both  these  sea- 
sons within  the  limits  of  the  same  day,  lengthen  it  to 
thirty  hours  ;  for  he  says  the  Jews  began  their  day 
at  sunsetting,  we  at  midnight. "  This  is  really  cut- 
ting the  knot.  Of  Godwin's  ' '  Moses  and  Aaron^^  1 
can  say  nothing,  not  having  read  it,  but  by  what  you 
have  cited  it  would  seem  that  Christ  and  Jews  ate  the 
the  passover  it  the  same  hour  on  the  14th  day  of  month 
which  was  the  legal  time  :  the  following  day — the 
day  of  the  crucifixion,  according  to  this,  was  legally 
the  first  day  of  unleavened  bread  from  which  they 
were  to  count  for  the  feast  of  pentecost  ;  which  is 
against  its  happening  upon  the  first  day  of  week. 

1  dislike  to  be  continually  complaining  of  unfair- 
ness in  your  references  to  my  letters  ;  but  I  find  too 
piuch   occasion  for  it.     In  your   remarks   upon  my 


316 


SABBATH     DISCUSSION. 


citations  from  Ignatius^  you  intimate  that  I  charge 
the  interpolations  of  which  I  complained  upon  papai- 
izers.  I  have  said  nothing  intimating  who  1  sup- 
poseo  had  made  them.  What  I  cited  from  him  rela- 
tive to  the  observance  of  the  Sabbath,  is  no  more  than 
what  appears  to  have  been  practised  by  Christians 
generally  long  since  his  time.  It  is  very  unlikely  that 
any  of  them  who  observed  the  first  day,  would  have 
expunged  from  any  of  his  epistles  what  some  of  them 
say  in  favor  of  the  practice.  I  should  therefore  infer 
from  the  fact  that  some  copies  of  his  epistles  to  the 
Magnesians  and  TralUans  are  said  to  recommend  the 
observance  of  the  first  day,  while  others,  (  acknow- 
ledged to  be  genuine,  )  are  without  any  thing  of  the 
kind,  that  those  originally  written  had  nothing  of  it 
in  thom.  I  have  no  complaint  against  the  history  of 
Eusehius,  otherwise  than  that  the  whole  of  it  shows 
his  strong  partiality  for  the  usages  of  the  Romish 
Church.  In  regard  to  your  quotations  from  him, 
it  is  proper  to  state  that  the  whole  of  the  chapter  from 
which  they  are  taken  relates  to  the  annual  obser- 
vance of  the  passover,  and  not  to  the  weekly  obser- 
vance of  the  first  day  of  the  week.  Those  synods 
which  were  held  upon  this  subject,  were  only  to  settle 
the  particular  day  upon  which  this  annual  festival 
should  close.  Those  which  were  so  generally  held 
at  this  time,  (about  A.  D.  200,)  agreed  Ihat  this 
solemnity,  which  had  been  from  the  first  held  in 
memory  of  Christ's  passion,,  and  answering,  as  to  the 
time  of  its  commencement  and  duration,  to  the  Jewish 
passover,  should  close  only  on  the  first  day  of  the 
week.  But,  in  the  following  chapter  of  Eusebius,  we 
have  the  protest  of  all  the  bishops  of  Asia  against 
what  they  considered  an  oppressive  usurpation  of  the 
western  bishops.  According  to  Polycrates,  who 
wrote  to  Victor,  bishop  of  Rome,  on  the  subjectj  the 


SABBATH     DISCUSSION. 


317 


Christians  in  Asia  had  never  had  any  respect  for  the 
first  day  of  the  week  in  holding  this  feast.  He  states 
that  John,  who  leaned  on  the  bosom  of  our  Lord, 
Philip  and  his  virgin  daughters,  Throseas,  Segaris, 
Papirius,  Melito,  all  bishops,  and,  in  a  word,  all  the 
Churches  in  Asia,  observed  the  fourteenth  day  for  the 
passover,  according  to  the  Gospel  ;  deviating  in 
nothing,  but  always  observing  the  day  when  the  peo- 
ple threw  away  the  leaven.  Upon  the  refusal  of  the 
Asiatic  Churches  to  comply  with  the  decree  of  those 
jjopish  synods,  Victor  endeavored  to  excommunicate 
all  the  Churches  of  Asia,  together  with  their  neigh- 
boring Churches,  as  heterodox.  And  we  learn  from 
what  Irenaus  said  to  Victor,  namely,  that  many  of 
former  pastors,  even  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  did  not 
observe  this  feast  ;  and,  therefore,  that  those  espe- 
cially who  urged  its  being  kept  on  the  first  day  of  the 
week,  were  innovators.  Hence  the  testimony  of 
Eusebius  does  not  appear  to  prove  what  you  imagine 
it  does  ;  viz.,  that  the  Christians  of  that  time  univer- 
sally agreed  that  Christ  rose  on  the  first  day  ;  for  all 
the  Churches  of  Asia  and  their  neighbors  refused  to 
comply  with  the  decree  of  the  western  bishops,  in 
celebrating  the  mystery  of  the  resurrection  on  this 
day.  We  also  see  that  the  Asiatic  Churches  that 
strictly  followed  the  apostolic  custom,  were  so  far 
from  viewing  it  the  most  holy  of  all  days,  that  they 
appear  to  have  had  no  regard  for  it.  The  above  also 
throws  some  light  upon  the  manner  in  which  the  ob- 
servance of  the  first  day  came  into  general  use.  I 
have  no  hesitation  in  believing  that,  from  the  custom 
of  observing  the  Jewish  passover,  the  converted  Jews 
continued  to  observe  the  same  season  ;  not  to  com- 
memorate their  deliverance  from  Egypt,  but  the  Sa- 
viour's death  and  resurrection,  which  occurred  during 
the  passover  week,  and  hence  called  the  passio7i  iveek. 


318 


SABBATH    DISCUSSION. 


But  this  was  not  done  by  all  ;  some  of  the  early- 
bishops  of  Rome  not  only  omitted  it  entirely,  but  for- 
bid their  brethren  to  regard  it.  It  was  eventually 
adopted  at  Rome  and  by  the  western  Churches,  but 
not  as  it  was  observed  in  Palestine  and  other  parts  of 
Asia.  They  closed  this  annual  festival  on  the  first 
day  of  the  week,  iriaking  it,  of  course,  a  great  con- 
vocatixDn  day.  It  seems  to  have  been  a  voluntary 
thing  in  the  Churches;  for  IrencBus  stated  "that 
some  thought  they  ought  to  fast  only  one  day,  some 
two,  some  more  days  ;  some  computed  their  day  to  con- 
sist of  forty  hoars,  night  and  day,  and  this  diversity 
existed  among  those  that  observed  it.  "  At  length,  the 
western  bishops  who  were  favorable  to  the  supremacy 
of  the  Church  of  Rome,  with  Victor  at  their  head, 
made  this  effort  by  calling  together  synods  of  bish- 
ops in  various  places,  who  decreed  that  this  an- 
nual festival  should  close  only  on  the  first  day  of  the 
week.  They  thus  succeeded  in  securing  the  annual 
observance  of  this  day  ;  and,  finally,  its  weekly  ob- 
servance, as  far  as  the  influence  of  Rome  extended. 
But  it  was  regarded  as  a  memorial  of  the  resurrection, 
and  not  as  a  substitute  for  the  weekly  Sabbath. 

In  referring  to  my  letter  of  February  27,  1835, 
you  have  objected  to  my  conclusion  that,  as  the  Sab- 
bath was  instituted  before  the  fall,  it  did  not  originate 
in  the  grace  of  God  to  sinners,  and,  therefore,  could 
not  be  affected  by  the  Gospel.  To  this  you  say, 
that,  if  1  believe  that  God's  purpose  of  grace  in 
Christ  was  before  the  creation  of  the  world,  my  re- 
mark is  idle.  I  do  not  see  how  my  belief  in  the  di- 
vine purpose  to  save  sinners,  bears  against  the  rea- 
sonableness of  my  conclusion.  His  purpose  of  grace 
resulted  from  the  certain  foreknowledge  of  the  fall  ; 
but  it  would  be  absurd  to  say  that  God  anticipated 
the  fall  in  instituting  the  Sabbath,  and  then  assign, 


SABBATH    DISCUSSION.  3l9 

as  the  only  reason  for  the  institution,  that  he  had 
rested  on  the  seventh  day  from  all  his  work.  Whether 
the  Sabbath  was  a  symbol  of  a  higher  state  of  felicity 
for  innocent  man  than  was  enjoyed  in  Eden,  or 
whether  he  would  have  been  exalted  to  it,  1  pretend 
not  to  know  ;  but  it  w^ill  not  be  denied  that  it  is  a 
type  of  heavenly  rest  for  redeemed  sianers,  Heb.  iv. 
9  ;  and,  as  such,  that  its  typical  designs  will  not  be 
fully  accomplished  until  the  last  redeemed  sinner 
of  all  Adam's  numerous  family  shall  enter  into  that 
rest. 

As  to  your  feelings  in  regard  to  Jewish  rites,  you 
are  certainly  the  best  judge  ;  but,  from  your  general 
manner  of  expressing  yourself  when  any  thing  you 
conceive  to  be  Jewish  is  the  subject  of  remark,  it  is 
evident  you  have  not  been  under  the  influence  of  feel- 
ings the  most  complacent  either  towards  the  things 
themselves,  or  those  who  adhere  to  them.  Upon  this 
account  only  can  I  charitably  account  for  your  many 
deviations  from  courtesy  in  our  discussion,  t  know 
not  what  but  this  could  have  betrayed  you  into  your 
hasty  —  condemnatory  remarks  upon  the  act  o^  St. 
Paul,  when,  in  the  temple,  he  performed  a  rite  ac- 
cording to  Jewish  usage,  Acts  xxi.  20  —  26.  (Letter 
I,  Januar}^  30,  1835.)  As  a  Jewish  practice  you 
view  the  observance  of  the  seventh  day  ;  hence  it  is 
to  you,  as  were  the  Hebrews  to  the  Egyptians,  an 
abomination,  Gen.  xliii.  32  ;  and  you  seem  less  dis- 
turbed and  anxious  in  regard  to  those  who  believe 
there  is  no  Sabbath,  than  to  those  who  observe  the 
seventh  day.  And  your  remarks  in  the  paragraph 
now  under  consideration,  indicate  that  you  have  no 
common-place  feelings  for  Jewish  rites.  In  this  place 
you  say  of  Jewish  rites,  "  continued  under  the  same 
and  other  names,  I  cannot,  I  mnst  not  endure  them  ; 
for,  so  continued,  they  are  abhorred  of  God,  Is.  Ixvi, 


320  SAI^BATH    DISCUSSION. 

3.  And  the  apostle  calls  them  weak  and  beggarly 
elements  ;  and  speaks  veiy  reproachl'ully  of  judaizing 
teachers,  calJing  them  dogs  and  evil-workers,  such  as 
would  trouble  the  Church,  and  prevent  the  Gospel  ; 
nay,  said  of  them,  '  I  would  that  they  were  even  cut- 
off, '  at  least  from  the  Church,  if  not  from  the  earth.  -' 
What  but  strong  feelings  could  have  dictated  the  se- 
lection of  such  strong  language  to  express  them  ? 
However,  I  am  glad  if  I  have  been  mistaken  on  this 
point.  There  has  been  no  difference  between  us  ex- 
cepting in  the  observance  of  the  seventh  day  to  which 
your  remarks  and  Scripture  references  could  be  de- 
signed to  apply  ;  otherwise,  they  are  irrelevant. 
Now,  in  respect  to  the  remarks  and  Scripture  refer- 
ence T  have  just  cited  from  your  last  letter,  can  you 
sincerely  believe  they  are  applicable  to  those  whose 
only  objectionable  practice  is  the  observance  of  the 
Sabbath  which  God  has  sanctified  ?  Surely  the  affec- 
tionate Paul,  who  had  never  departed  either  in  doc- 
trine or  practice  from  this  observance,  could  never 
have  expressed  himself  thus  against  James,  and 
John,  and  Peter,  and  his  fellow  laborers  in  the  Gos- 
pel, and  the  many  myriads  of  Hebrew  Christians  who, 
you  must  know,  were  then  in  the  observance  of  the 
seventh  day.  If  this  be  not  the  thing  you  mean  to 
oppose,  you  "fight  as  one  who  beateth  the  air;''  but 
I  must  view  this  practice  as  a  Jewish  rite  before  I 
can  feel  the  force  of  your  opposition  to  it. 

As  to  your  reference  to  Josephus,  (b.  7.  c.  8.  sec. 
5.)  Admitting  that,  by  every  eighth  day,  he  intended 
the  beginning  of  every  week,  still  it  is  not  equivalent 
to  the  phrase  ''^  after  eight  days,'^  John  xx.  26,  the 
text  you  designed  to  illustrate.  Neither  is  "about 
an  eight  days,  ''  Luke  ix.  28,  the  same  in  its  signifi- 
cation. The  article  an,  in  this  place,  should  not  have 
been  used,  for  you  know  the  Greek  language  has  no 


SABBATH     DISCUSSION.  321 

indefinite  article  ;  and,  in  this  place,  it  ought  not  to 
be  understood,  as  it  alters  the  sense  of  the  phrase, 
making  it  a  singular  noun  by  compounding  the  terms  ; 
whereas  they  should  be  preserved  separate,  as  they 
are  in  the  original.  Besides  this,  the  insertion  of  the 
article  has  the  effect  to  impress  the  reader  with  the 
idea  that  there  was  an  established  cycle  of  this  num- 
ber of  days,  or  one  that  was  usually  styled  thus  ;  and 
that  the  Holy  Spirit  authorized  this  appellation  for  a 
week  of  seven  days.  For  these  reasons,  I  think  the 
article  should  be  omitted.  In  regard  to  the  text  had 
in  view  in  these  remarks,  viz.,  John  xx.  26,  its  sig- 
nification must  be  determined  by  the  sense  of  the 
preposition  meta,  which  in  this  place  governs  an  ac- 
cusative, and  most  properly  signifies  after,  and 
therefore  has  no  equivalent  in  either  of  the  texts 
above  noticed. 

In  again  referring  to  what  you  call  my  "strange 
allegation,  that  Brown  and  Lightfoot  assign  the  as- 
cension gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost  to  the  seventh  day, " 
you  seem  intent  upon  misunderstanding  mc.  1  have 
never  intimated  that  I  supposed  that  either  of  them 
thought  that  the^Holy  Ghost  descended  on  the  seventh 
day.  By  referring  to  my  first  letter,  you  will  see  that 
my  remark  was  made  in  reply  to  your  confident  as- 
sertion that  pentecostj  the  year  our  Lord  was  crucified, 
was  on  the  first  day  of  the  week.  I  then  observed 
that  writers  differed  in  this  matter.  Burnside  sup- 
posed it  was  on  the  sixth  or  seventh  day,  and  Broivn 
and  Lightfoot  admit  that  it  fell  on  the  seventh  day. 
At  this  you  appear  greatly  surprised,  and,  under  date 
of  January  30th,  1835,  severely  censuring  me,  you 
firmly  denied  it.  In  my  letter  of  October  16th,  in 
order  to  satisfy  you  and  sustain  my  remark,  I  fur- 
nished you  with  extracts  from  Dr.  Brown,  with  his 
references  to  Dr.  Lightfoot,  for  confirmation.     And 


322  SABBATH    DISCUSSION. 

now  you  charge  me  with  designing  to  impose  upon  my 
readers  and  persuading  them  to  believe  what  1  know 
to  be  false.  1  have  no  "railing  accusation"  to  bring 
against  you  in  reply  ;  but,  desiring  to  have  this  matter 
understood,  and  satisfy  you,  if  possible,  that  I  have 
been  honesty  if  not  correct,  in  this  affair,  1  beg  leave  to 
give  you  a  part  of  the  extract  again  —  it  runs  thus  : 
*'  When  treating  of  the  passover,  we  noticed  that  the 
paschal  lamb  was  eaten  on  Thursday  ;  that  Friday, 
when  our  Lord  was  crucified,  was  the  first  day  of 
passover  week  ;  and  that  Saturday  the  first  fruits 
were  offered  up.  Consequently,  the  fiftieth  day  after, 
or  pentecost,  would  fall  on  a  Saturday,  after  the  sun- 
set of  which,  or  on  the  beginning  of  the  Christian 
Sabbath,  the  Holy  Ghost  probably  descended. ''  Now, 
who  that  can  read  English  *can  be  so  stupid  as  not  to 
see  that  he  suj)posed  pentecost  fell  on  Saturday  ?-  or 
that  Saturday  and  the  seventh  day  are  not  the  same  ? 
As  to  his  0])inion  of  the  time  when  the  Holy  Spirit 
descended,  ( in  regard  to  which  m^'^  remark  was  not 
made,  )  he  does  indeed  say  it  was  probably  after  sun- 
set on  Saturday,  and  consequently  "  on  the  begin- 
ning of  the  Christian  Sabbath,''  or  the  first  day,  as 
he  bc'lieved  this  day  began  at  sunset  on  the  seventh 
day  ;  but,  according  to  your  opinion  of  the  licginning 
of  it,  Dr.  B.  must  suppose  this  miraculous  gift  was 
hestovv^ed  neither  on  the  seventh  nor  the  first  day,  but 
during  that  chasm  from  sunset  to  midnight  which  you 
think  occurred  between  the  two  days.  In  your  last 
letter  you  say,  "you  are  glad  I  could  defend  my  un- 
happy assertion  so  well. "  1  am  glad  I  have  so  much 
truth  to  defend  it  with. 

The  reasons  you  give  for  calling  the  seventh  day 
the  Jewish  Sabbath,  do  not  appear  to  me  to  be  very 
solid ;  especially  as  it  is  generally  received  as  a  term 
of  reproach.     Although  the  Jews  and  such  as  were 


SABBATH     DISCUSSION.  823 

proselyted  to  their  religion  were  the  only  people  that 
observed  the  seventh  day  scripturally,  yet  we  have 
seen  that  the  whole  Gentile  world  was  under  moral 
obligation  to  keep  it.  The  seventh  day,  tlw^refore, 
divested  of  its  ceremonial  peculiarities,  is  not,  in  point 
of  fact,  and  never  has  been  the  Jewish  Sabbath.  Your 
proving  that  tlie  word  SabbcUh  was  never  used  in  the 
Scripture  till  the  time  the  manna  was  given,  is  no  more 
than  every  other  person  has  proved  who  has  read 
from  Gen.  ii.  to  Ex.  xvi.  But  though  this  is  true  in 
regard  to  our  version,  you  know  that  in  the  Hebrew 
of  Gen.  ii.  3,  as  a  verb,  shabhath,  "Ac  rested,^' 
[sabbatized]  occurs,  which  is  the  very  root  itself 
from  which  Shabbalh,  as  a  noun,  is  derived.  The 
omission  of  this  word,  as  a  noun,  cannot  affect  the 
question  whether  the  seventh  day  is  the  Jewish  Sab- 
bath. You,  as  well  as  every  other  reasonable  man, 
must  admit  that  there  was  a  Sabbath,  and  that  it  was 
the  seventh  day  ;  and  none  can  deny  that  there  was 
some  word  by  which  it  v/as  known  —  but  names  are 
but  words,  and  do  not  affect  the  nature  of  the  things 
which  are  known  by  them.  Again, — although  I  ad- 
mit that  the  first  day  was  observed  as  a  memorial  of 
the  resurrection  long  before  there  was  a  j^ojje  or  jm- 
plsts ;  yet  it  was  through  the  usurpation  and  influ- 
ence of  those  who  were  favorable  to  the  Romish 
supremacy,  that  cherished  its  observance  while  a 
nursling,  and  that  finally  put  it  in  the  place  of  the 
Sabbath,  as  will  appear  to  all  who  carefully  and  can- 
didly examine  the  subject.  The  Catholics  themselves 
claim  to  have  done  this  and  urge  it  as  an  objection 
against  protestanism.*     In  short,  the  first  day  is,  in 

*  The  Rev.  Samuel  B.  Smith,  formerly  a  priest  of  the  Church  of 
I?ome,  says,  "  Rome  affirms  that  the  Church  has  all  power  through 
its  ministers  to  alter  or  amend  the  divine  commandment,  according 
to  the  exigencies  of  the  case  ;  to  appoint  a  day  and  make  it  holy,  or 
to  make  tlic  day  commou  and  secular. 


324  SABBATH    DISCUSSION. 

point  of  fact,  the  papal  Sabbath,  so  far  as  its  being 
put  in  the  place  of  the  Sabbath  by  papists  can  make 
it  so.  But  the  law  of  Christian  kindness  forbids  a 
Sabbath-keepe?'  reproaching  a  fellow  Christian  by 
unnecessarily  using  against  him  this  offensive  appella- 
tion to  the  day  he  observes. 

The  passage  cited  from  Calvin,  may  be  found  in 
Christian  Institutes,  ch.  9.  He  speaks  very  nearly 
like  this  :  "  It  was  not  without  good  reasons  that  the 
the  old  fathers  put  in  the  place  of  the  Sabbath  the 
day  called  Sunday. "  He  does  not  suppose  there  is 
a  divine  appointment  for  any  particular  day,  but  he 
says  the  old  fathers  made  the  change.  I  wish  also 
to  correct  your  mistaking  Moreri  for  Morei',  a  rector 
of  the  Church  of  England. 

Having  now  performed  the  duty  which  your  last 
series  of  letters  imposed  upon  me,  I  shall  close  my 
communications  to  you  on  this  subject.  I  am  sorry 
to  have  had  occasion  so  frequently  to  complain  of 
unfairness  in  construing  my  remarks.  I,  however, 
assure  you  I  have  no  unkind  feelings  towards  you  or 
any  of  my  brethren  who  differ  from  me  on  the  sub- 
ject of  this  discussion.  Should  you  notice  the  pre- 
ceding letters  so  far  as  to  read  them  ;  be  pleased  to 
ascribe  to  my  weakness  and  ignorance,  rather  than 
to  a  disposition  to  err,  v/hatever  you  may  disapprove. 

I  now  bid  you  adieu,  and  repeat  my  former  invo- 
cation of  God's  blessing  upon  you,  in  hope  of  meet- 
ing you  where  the  wicked  cease  from  troubling,  and 
the  weary  arc  at  rest. 

W.  B.  MAXSON,  Pastor  of  the  Seventh 

Day  Baptist  Ch.,  Piscataway,  N.  J. 


><-J 


